Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD (LANDS) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 6th April,

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES' CLERKS

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the qualifications for the position of petty sessions clerks; how many are there in England and Wales; what are their respective qualifications and ages; and what supervision is kept over the discharge of their duties.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Subject to special provisions in some local Acts, a clerk to the Justices of a petty sessional division or a borough must be a barrister of not less than 14 years' standing, or a solicitor, or must have served for not less than seven years as a clerk to a police or stipendiary magistrate or to a Metropolitan magistrates' court or to one of the magistrates' courts of the City of London; in addition, a person is eligible for appointment if he has served for not less than 14 years as an assistant to a justices' clerk where in the opinion of the Justices there are special circumstances rendering such an appointment desirable. There are at present 778 clerks to justices in England and Wales. I have no detailed information as to their qualifications and ages. A clerk to justices holds office during the pleasure of the justices.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that there are at present a number of survivals of unqualified men from a previous period; will the Home Secretary see that in future, in view of the responsible and technical nature of the work, only qualified men are appointed; and will he revise these appointments which are occupied at present by unqualified men?

Mr. Ede: I desire to see people with the best possible qualifications appointed, but I have no power to revise the type of appointment to which my hon. and learned Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (PRODUCTIVE WORK)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to provide a scheme of constructive work which will make our prisons self-supporting financially and by encouraging useful production in them contribute to the wealth of the nation.

Mr. Ede: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to Questions by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 12th February and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 18th March.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be financially desirable to employ these men in constructive work, which would have a beneficial effect upon their morale inasmuch as they would then know that they were making some useful contribution to public life?

Mr. Ede: I desire to see this work extended as much as possible. As I have said in reply to previous Questions, I should be helped in this if I had a greater supply of suitable staff for supervision.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPEEDWAY RACING (LEICESTER)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has refused permission for speedway racing to take place in Leicester on Friday evenings at 7 p.m. in view of the fact that the chief industries all work a 5-day week, concluding on Fridays, and that the Leicestershire coal field operates a 5-day week for three weeks out of four, and whether he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Ede: I am arranging to review my decisions on the applications for mid-week speedway racing to which I was not able to agree.

Mr. Janner: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that his answer will give a considerable amount of satisfaction to workers in Leicester who have done such splendid work in the production drive and who really do deserve relaxation on the Friday evenings when they are so keen to attend these races?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR

Civilian Workers

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in relation to his recent decision that prisoners of war married to British women would be given priority consideration in the matter of remaining as civilian workers in this country, he will arrange for such men to be classified as displaced persons, so that they may be available for work in this country in all categories of employment which will not adversely affect British labour.

Mr. Ede: Prisoners of war married to British-born women, if and when discharged to civilian status in this country, will be subject, so far as employment is concerned, only to such controls as are applicable to British subjects, except that those discharged to agricultural employment will be expected to serve out their contracts. No question of classifying them as displaced persons arises.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he will indicate the results of the consideration by the various Departments concerned of an extension of the scheme under which German prisoners of war may remain in Britain as civilian agricultural workers; and approximately how many additional prisoners are to be retained.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): County agricultural executive committees have been given discretion to exceed the authorised number of German civilians for their county to enable a farmer to retain the services of a German who has been working for him regularly as a prisoner of war, if this is essential in the interests of food production. I regret that I cannot estimate the effect of this decision in statistical terms.

Sir Ian Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman said "retain." Does that answer also apply to getting a man back?

The Prime Minister: I should need notice of that question.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can the Prime Minister say whether there is any possibility of extending the categories of employments in respect of which prisoners may be allowed to stay here, provided that British labour is not thereby adversely affected?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

Parcels (Vegetable Seeds)

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the food situation in Germany and the small total quantity of seeds involved, he will consider issuing, through the commandants of prisoner of war camps, or otherwise, export licences which will enable German prisoners to include limited quantities of vegetable seeds in the parcels they send home.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am prepared to issue export licences in these cases, and I am examining with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, the question whether the supply position would enable the requirement of an export licence to be waived.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his forthcoming attitude, may I ask him to bear in mind the small and decreasing amount which would be required, as the men are going home?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE INQUIRIES (COMPLAINT)

Sir David Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the case of the young Streatham girl in the A.T.S., who was wrongfully suspected of theft and subjected to an examination by the police which savoured of third degree; and what steps he intends to take to prevent similar abuses in future.

Mr. Ede: This incident involved the Wiltshire Constabulary, and the matter is not, therefore, one in which I have any direct responsibility. I have, however, communicated with the Chief Constable


of Wiltshire, who denies that the interview took the form suggested in the Question: I am considering his report and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not a fact that this young woman was placed in a chair in a room without witnesses while a policewoman kept walking around her hurling at her allegations that she had committed a crime which, of course, she did not commit; and that, as a result, the girl's health broke down and she had to go to hospital? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps —whether or not it is his direct responsibility—to make sure that no British citizen is treated in this fashion in future by any police force?

Mr. Ede: The allegations made by the hon. Gentleman in the first part of his supplementary question have been denied by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire. I am investigating the allegations and the denials, and I promise to let the hon. Gentleman know the result of my investigations.

Sir D. Robertson: The facts which I gave in my Question and in my supplementary have been confirmed by the War Office.

Mr. Ede: As I told the hon. Gentleman, I am investigating the statements. I have no direct responsibility for this case at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE FORCE, LONDON (HOUSING)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the undermanning of the Police Force in London is due to lack of living accommodation.

Mr. Ede: This is not a point on which it is possible to make an exact evaluation, but it is, unfortunately, clear that the present acute housing difficulties of the police in London are having a marked effect on obtaining and retaining recruits to the Metropolitan Police.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say what steps he is taking to overcome this difficulty?

Mr. Ede: I have mentioned this matter in the Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill earlier this week. I have supported

the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in his appeals to the housing authorities to place some of the houses which they have available at the disposal of the police.

Captain Crookshank: Does that mean at the disposal of the policemen individually, or of the Commissioner, thus making them tied houses?

Mr. Ede: It all depends on what lines the local authority is willing to enter into negotiations. There are advantages both ways, but I would myself prefer that the policeman should be the tenant of the house.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH NATIONALITY (SARAWAK)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that a man can only be a British subject by birth, by nationalisation, or by annexation, he will institute legislation to make it possible to become a British subject by secession, and so make it legal for subjects of Sarawak to join the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Ede: I presume that the hon. Member means "naturalisation," not "nationalisation."
I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 11 of the British Nationality Bill, which has been introduced in another place and makes provision on this point. I understand that the inhabitants of Sarawak are already British subjects, and no further action with regard to their national status is therefore needed.

Mr. Teeling: How does that apply, even if they have had passports to show that they are British subjects by annexation? If there is no such thing as cession, presumably what has happened in the past has all been illegal?

Mr. Ede: If they are described on the passports as British subjects, no matter by what means they have become British subjects, those passports should apply as British passports.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Common Cold (Research)

Mr. House: asked the Minister of Health what is the cost to the Government of the scheme carried out by his Ministry


at Harvard Hospital, Salisbury, for seeking volunteers for experiments on catching cold.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): No expense has been incurred in seeking volunteers, but the total cost of the work up to 31st December last was £14, 170.

Mr. House: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that this is quite a wrong approach to the treatment of illness and disease and a complete waste of public money; and if he will arrange for his medical advisers, who are behind this scheme to be placed in some comfortable home of rest or detention out of harm's way?

Mr. Bevan: I should be happy to receive from my hon. Friend or anyone associated with him technical advice as to how to prevent or cure the common cold. It is extremely unfair to cast doubt on research workers because a certain amount of money is being spent; otherwise, we would never get any research done at all.

Voluntary Hospitals, London

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Health which voluntary hospitals in the London area have been disclaimed from the provisions of the National Health Act.

Mr. Bevan: As the list is long. I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say what conditions the Government are imposing on these hospitals?

Mr. Bevan: The conditions vary with the nature of the hospital.

Following is the list:

Voluntary Hospitals which have been disclaimed.

The French Hospital and Dispensary.
The Italian Hospital.
The British Dental Hospital.
King Edward VII Hospital for Officers.
Royal Masonic Hospital.
The Star and Garter Home, Richmond.
Scio House Hospital for Officers, Putney.
Hurlingham Lodge Auxiliary Hospital.
Hawthorne Christian Science House, Hampstead.
Stanborough's Hydro, Watford.
St. Andrew's Hospital, Dollis Hill.
Hospital of St. John and St. Elizabeth.

St. Vincent's Orthopaedic Hospital, Pinner.
St. Saviour's Hospital.
St. Joseph's Institute, N.9.
St. Joseph's, E.8.
St. Anthony's Hospital, Cheam.
St. Veronica's, S.W.14.
St. Michael's, Worcester Park.
Hostel of St. Luke, W.1.
St. Raphael's, Brentford.
St. Raphael's Colony, Potters Bar.
Pield Heath House.
St. Teresa's, Wimbledon.
Hostel of God, Clapham Common.
Home of Compassion, Thames Ditton.
Convent of Our Lady Nursing Home, Hillington Court.
St. David's Home, Ealing.
Etloe House, E.10.
London Clinic for Psycho-Analysis.
Catholic Nursing Institute.
Manor House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Agricultural Workers

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to secure that local authorities in rural areas shall allocate more council houses to agricultural workers; and that farmers may be able to obtain licences to construct houses for farm workers with less delay.

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Health whether he will allow some licences to be issued for the building of houses for agricultural workers by landowners and farmers in view of the urgent need in rural districts, the fact that material is available, and that such houses would be additional to the quota already allocated to R.D.Cs?

Mr. Bevan: Licences are issued within the capacity of local building resources for the building of houses for agricultural workers. I am sending the hon. Members a copy of a circular which was sent to rural housing authorities on the allocation of council houses for this purpose.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister answer the last part of my Question as well?

Mr. Bevan: I have answered it, and, if the hon. Member will look at the circular, he will see that all the information is contained there.

Mr. Bossom: This question applies to farmers getting licences without the terrific trouble which they have experienced. Cannot they be given an easier passage to get, the houses built? They are ready, the workers are ready, but they cannot get the houses.

Mr. Bevan: Farm workers do not live in licences; they live in houses, and it is no use issuing licences in excess of the capacity of the local resources to build houses.

Brigadier Peto: As I did not hear what the first part of the Minister's answer was, would the right hon. Gentleman repeat it?

Later.

Brigadier Peto: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? When you called Question No. 16 addressed to the Minister of Health, he very indistinctly said that he would answer my Question, No. 25, at the same time. I did not in consequence hear the first part of his answer. I rose and asked him to repeat it to you. Am I not entitled in a case like that to have the answer repeated?

Mr. Speaker: I did not know that the Minister refused. I remember that he looked at me. I did not hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I did not quite know that his Question was being answered at the same time. It is impossible to have the answer now. All I can say is that I recommend him to read the answer when it appears in HANSARD.

Brigadier Peto: Further to that point of Order, Sir. If you did not hear my Question called at the same time as it was going to be answered, how could possibly hear it?

Mr. Speaker: I suffer from various disadvantages which do not affect hon. Members. I have no amplifier anywhere near me, but I understand that hon. Members do have amplifiers, which enable them to hear.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: On that point of Order, is it not a fact that Ministers can only answer Questions together, with the permission of the hon. Members concerned? That would seem to imply that if one of the hon. Members concerned asked for a separate answer, he is entitled to have it.

Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly true. Actually, I did call the hon. and gallant Member for No. 25, but he did not get up to ask it. He had his opportunity then.

Bombed Property (Tenancies)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health, whether his attention has been called to the consequences flowing from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Ellis and Sons, Amalgamated Properties Limited against Sisman; and whether, in view of the hardship to tenants of bombed property thereby occasioned, he proposes to introduce amending legislation.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware of this decision, but can hold out no prospect of early legislation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision has deprived certain of these tenants of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act, and will he issue a circular to local authorities giving them guidance as to the course to be followed in regard to these unfortunate people?

Mr. Bevan: I will consider whether guidance is practicable in the circumstances, but I think the hon. Member will agree that this was an extremely delicate point of law on whether the house had been destroyed and whether the original tenancy was alive. Unfortunately, the house had been completely destroyed, and the original tenancy destroyed with it. There is a difficulty in such a case, but we will consider whether any help can be given.

Building Conversion Plan, Witney

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Health, why his Department has rejected the plan to convert a building on Wood Green, Witney, Oxon, into a block of sixteen flats, when all local authorities had given full support to the scheme.

Mr. Bevan: The cost in labour and materials is much too great, having regard to the accommodation that would result. No official notification has been received that the local authorities support the scheme.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Minister, then, take the trouble to find out that this scheme has, in fact, been supported by the local authorities of Witney and Reading, and his Department in London knew the circumstances? Is it not a case where the best use of the labour and the workers and the results achieved should be left to the local authorities?

Mr. Bevan: If the local authorities had supported the scheme that would be another matter. So far as my information is concerned, the hon. Member's statement that the local authority supported the scheme is incorrect.

Permanent Houses (Lettings)

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased cost of building and the recent increase in the interest rates for loans raised for housing purposes, he will introduce legislation to increase the annual contribution of £16 10s. per house which is made by Parliament and local authorities under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th March, 1948, to the Question asked by the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division of the East Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Wadsworth), of which I am sending him a copy.

Flats, London (Rents)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Paddington Borough Council have referred to the tribunal under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, some 550 contracts for furnished lettings and unfurnished lettings with services in respect of flats at Park West, W.2, without any initiative having been taken by the tenants in regard thereto; and whether, having in mind the amount of statistical work involved in supplying particulars under the Act, he will issue a circular deprecating these comprehensive references in cases where tenants make no complaints.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir," and to the second part. "No, Sir." As I have said before, it is for a local authority to decide in what particular cases they should exercise their powers of reference to a tribunal.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that, in this case, the action taken by the Paddington Borough Council is an abuse of their powers in that there were no complaints to the borough council; that this is likely to cause considerable bad feeling between landlord and tenant, which should not exist; and that I

have had numerous letters from the tenants protesting against having their cases referred to the tribunal, because they were perfectly satisfied with their rent?

Mr. Bevan: The power was given to the local authorities to refer rents to the rents tribunals where the authority considered that the rents were unreasonable and where they believed that many appeals to the tribunals were not being made because of the fears of reprisals by the landlords. I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the local authority in this case.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: While recognising what the Minister has said regarding the fear of the three months' notice in this case, may I ask him if he is aware that the Council could have no cause to consider that the rents were high, because there had been no complaints made about them?

Mr. Bevan: I think it would be a gross interference with the powers of the authority to make any remark reflecting on the way they used them.

Sir John Mellor: Will the Minister say whether these 550 cases were the subject of individual and separate references to the tribunal, or whether they were all lumped together in one reference?

Mr. Bevan: That is an entirely different matter, and if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on it I will reply.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: They were.

Sir J. Mellor: Does not this point arise out of the Question, which refers to "comprehensive references"?

Mr. Bevan: Whether the references are put forward before the tribunal in that way or not is for the tribunal to determine.

Blackpool

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Health whether, in fixing the maximum number of houses which he will allow to be under construction at any given time in Blackpool, he has taken into account the 8,774 families on the waiting list for houses or of the great increase in population in recent years.

Mr. Bevan: The number of houses which should be under construction from time to time must be determined mainly by the possibilities of completing houses at a reasonable rate with the resources available.

Mr. Low: Surely, in allocating these resources over the whole nation, the Minister must have regard to the facts mentioned in the Question, and, in particular, to the fact that, in the last 10 years, the population of Blackpool has increased by 7,000?

Mr. Bevan: It is not only a question of local resources, but national resources. It means, for example, that it is no use giving authority to build more houses in a particular area if the national resources of timber are not sufficient. However, this matter has been considered, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will find that additional approvals will soon be given.

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a letter dated 9th February, sent to his Principal Housing Officer by the Town Clerk of Blackpool on behalf of the Blackpool Corporation, requesting that in certain specified cases permission should be given to the Corporation to sell houses to persons on the Corporation's priority housing list; and what answer he has made thereto.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The Town Clerk was informed in reply that as it is the Government's policy that the maximum number of houses should be available for letting, the sale of Council houses cannot be agreed to at the present time.

Mr. Low: Is the Minister aware that the Town Clerk gave as his reason for asking permission to sell certain individual houses that it was administratively wasteful for the Council to be responsible for houses scattered all over Blackpool, and did the right hon. Gentleman take that factor into consideration?

Mr. Bevan: I took all the factors into consideration, and I must say at once that I am disinclined to permit local authorities to sell houses to private individuals.

Scheme, Colchester

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reply which has been sent by his Department

to the Colchester Borough Council's application to build a thousand temporary bungalows of the Handcraft type; on what date details of this scheme were forwarded to his Department by the local authority; on what date his Department replied; and in what form his reply was conveyed to the Press by or on behalf of his Department.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the letter which was dated 13th March. The original proposals were submitted by the local authority on 28th November, and have been the subject of full investigation in the meantime. The Press have been informed in reply to inquiries that the bungalow was considered below standard and the scheme therefore not acceptable.

Mr. Smith: Does not the Press statement imply that the external appearance of the bungalows was a major factor in the Ministry's decision, and has he any comment to make on that?

Mr. Bevan: The reason why this particular type of bungalow was turned down was because the accommodation provided was substandard, and had nothing to do with the external appearance.

Following is a copy of the letter:

"13th March, 1948

Sir,

I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to correspondence which has passed between the Council and his Principal Housing Officer at Cambridge on the subject of a brick and asbestos bungalow which the Council wish to erect on their housing estates.

The Minister has carefully examined this project and his Senior Regional Architect has inspected the bungalow erected at Turner village. As a result the Minister is entirely satisfied that the scheme should not have his approval.

The cost originally quoted for the bungalows at Turner village was £500 a dwelling. It was clear from an examination of the schedule of prices that this figure was quite unreliable, the sums allowed for many items allowing nothing for labour costs and the allowances for certain items being less than the present market price of the materials involved. The Council's own figure is approximately £800, but it is admittedly an estimate not tested against tenders.

For this price, which is not greatly below the normal price for a permanent bungalow of the same size, the Council would obtain a dwelling which is seriously below the standards generally accepted by the Minister and by local authorities. The superficial area is low for a two-bedroomed dwelling; the window space is inadequate; kitchen fit-


tings, cupboard space and floor surface finishings are inferior and the structure itself is admittedly not of a permanent character. The estimated length of life is 'at least thirty years.' This again is an estimate which the Minister accepts with reserve.

The Minister fully appreciates the Council's anxiety to improve housing progress, but he is quite convinced that at this stage in the national housing programme it would be a most retrograde step to approve proposals of this nature and he is obliged therefore to ask that the Council reconsider their project.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) H. J. Ryan.

The Town Clerk,

Town Hall,

Colchester."

Requisitioned Property, Thorpe Bay

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a house at' 6, Broadclyst Gardens, Thorpe Bay, near Southend, Essex, the property of Mrs. Ivy Allison Bird of the White House, High Oak Road, Ware, was requisitioned by the Southend borough council on 25th July, 1947, and has remained unoccupied thereafter; and whether in these circumstances and in view of the fact that Mrs. Bird wishes to let the house to a young ex-Serviceman and his wife, he will cause the local authority to derequisition this house forthwith.

Mr. Bevan: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Timber Stocks, West Midlands

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Health what stocks of timber are available for house building in the West Midlands.

Mr. Bevan: Stocks of timber held by merchants are not specifically earmarked for house building, or for any other particular purpose.

Sir J. Mellor: If the Minister does not know what are the stocks, how can he say that there is a shortage?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is asking whether I know what stocks are held in a particular area. I would point out to him that the stocks in a particular area are not necessarily earmarked for building in that area.

Sir J. Mellor: Would it not be much better if the right hon. Gentleman were to

allow stocks in the West Midlands to be used in the West Midlands? If he did, we might get the houses.

Mr. Bevan: It would also be much better if the hon. Member asked his Question with more precision.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES, RURAL AREAS

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health if he is making special efforts at this time to ensure the provision of pipe water for both houses and fire protection services in rural villages.

Mr. Bevan: Very substantial progress is being made with the planning of schemes of rural water supply. The local authorities are required to consult the fire authorities when plans are in preparation so that adequate provision can be made for fire fighting where necessary.

Mr. Bossom: I quite understand that plans are essential, but is the Minister making any special efforts to get piped water for use in the houses and for fire service purposes?

Mr. Bevan: We have made more efforts in two and a half years than were made in 30 years before. The main reason why more progress cannot be made in the supply of piped water in rural areas is because sufficient provision was not made in the past to produce the steel necessary for that purpose.

Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister realise that in a number of villages the provision of water is being hampered because the Army, or other Services, are still retaining premises under requisition —very often unoccupied—and that, until it is certain that such premises will not be occupied, that water cannot be used for the ordinary civilian population? Will he make the necessary representations to his right hon. Friend the Service Minister responsible?

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, that is not a question even remotely related to the one on the Order Paper. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me particulars, I will investigate the matter.

Mr. David Eccles: Is the Minister aware that of all the schemes submitted to him since he took office less than 10 per cent. have so far been passed by his Ministry,


and is not the real reason for that the fact that his Ministry's allocation of labour and material for piped water is so low that they dare not give any more approvals?

Mr. Bevan: It may be perfectly true that the number of schemes put in hand represent only a small percentage of those submitted, but that number represents far more than those undertaken before.

Mr. Bossom: The Minister said he had difficulty about supplying steel. Is it not a fact that the steel industry are now providing more steel than ever before, and, that being so, how can he offer that as an excuse?

Mr. Bevan: Everybody knows that more steel is being consumed than ever before.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Site, Burford

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Education whether he will reconsider the decision to build a new senior school at Burford, Oxfordshire, south rather than north of the main A40 trunk road in view of the dangerous nature of this road crossing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no better alternative. He is assured that the authority will take all possible steps to obviate danger to the children.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Minister aware that before the war the local justices of the peace, the parish council, the local police authorities and everybody locally, appealed against this decision to build the school on the wrong side of the road; that land was acquired for building it on the correct side of the road; and that, when an already high accident rate is increased, it will be the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Education?

Mr. Hardman: We have consulted the local authority, and, at the present time, there is no alternative but to give the answer I have given.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: There is an alternative on the other side of the road—the land acquired before the war.

Bursaries, Cardiganshire

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Education whether it is with his approval that the Cardiganshire Education Committee have barred members of the Sea Cadets, Army Cadets, Air Training Corps and Junior Training Corps from applying for three bursaries offered to Cardiganshire youths for a month's course at the Outward Bound Secondary School, Aberdovey.

Mr. Hardman: These conditions are laid down by the school, not the authority, and the approval of my right hon. Friend is not required.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the Minister say whether any grant is made by the Ministry of Education towards these three bursaries, and will the hon. Gentleman take all possible steps to stop this discrimination being continued?

Mr. Hardman: I do not acknowledge that there is any discrimination. As to the first part of the question, I think we should have notice of it.

Dining Centres, Cardiff (Holiday Periods)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education how many necessitous school children attended the Cardiff Education Committee dining centres for meals during the Christmas holidays, 1947; and whether the feeding of these children is to be carried out during future school holidays.

Mr. Hardman: The highest number on any day was 628, spread over 22 dining centres. As the attendance was small and irregular, the authority have decided to discontinue holiday dinners in view of the waste of food involved.

Mr. Thomas: Whilst I appreciate the local authority's point about the wastage of food, could my hon. Friend tell me how many necessitous children who were fed at Christmas will not be fed at Easter?

Mr. Hardman: No, Sir. I could not give that information.

University Students (Grants)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Minister of Education whether he contemplates a more extensive use of his powers to


compel local authorities to pay grants on the Ministry's approved scale to all students securing a place at a university.

Mr. Hardman: Awards by local education authorities are made under arrangements approved by the Ministry of Education, and, in the majority of cases, follow the Ministry's scale. On present information my right hon. Friend sees no need for further measures, but he proposes shortly to examine with representatives of local authorities and others such questions as the scale and conditions of university awards.

Mr. Smith: Can my hon. Friend say what steps are taken when a local authority scale falls below that recommended by the Ministry?

Mr. Hardman: When we get particulars of such a case, we naturally inquire of the local authority, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Ministry's scales are fixed on recommendations of the University Scholarships Committee and are reviewed every three years. We hope very shortly to have consultations in order to see what revisions can take place.

Teachers (Interchange)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to promote the interchange of teachers between countries who have signed the Treaty of Brussels.

Mr. Hardman: My right hon. Friend is anxious to encourage the interchange of teachers between this country and any other country with which such arrangements are practicable. It will be one of the objects of the recently established Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges to review and supplement, where possible, the work of existing agencies in this respect.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my hon. Friend take note that Article 3 of this Treaty lays very special emphasis on co-operating in this sphere between the countries concerned, and will he also take more active steps, now that the Treaty has been signed, to see that Western Union is based on something positive and not just on the hostilities of Eastern Europe?

Mr. Hardman: We have already taken positive steps. The Central Bureau for

Educational Visits and Exchanges has been set up by my right hon. Friend, and will no doubt supplement all previous activities.

U.N.E.S.C.O.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education when he proposes of this statement and as U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference held last autumn at Mexico City.

Mr. Hardman: The document in question will be published by His Majesty's Stationery Office not later than the 20th April, 1948.

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education how many British subjects are employed on the staff of U.N.E.S.C.O.; who is responsible for the direction of the Education Division; and what is the total cost to this country since the establishment of the Organisation.

Mr. Hardman: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lindsay: Can I have an answer to the second part of the Question as to who is responsible for the direction of the education division?

Mr. Hardman: The present head of the Education Section is Dr. Kuo Yu-Shou. Dr. Beeby of New Zealand has recently been appointed Assistant Director-General, with special responsibility in the field of education.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the importance of this statement and that U.N.E.S.C.O. can now get a move on, will the Parliamentary Secretary convey our pleasure and thanks to New Zealand for allowing Dr. Beeby to be seconded to this Organisation for 18 months?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely, the Parliamentary Secretary can answer the last part of the Question as to what is the total cost?

Mr. Hardman: The total expenditure of this country on U.N.E.S.C.O., including expenditure in the United Kingdom, from the inception of the Preparatory Commission to 22nd March, 1948, has been £274,623. A further sum of £,304, 530 remains to be paid to the Organisation to meet our commitments until the end of


1948. Of the total sum of £579,153 to be paid by the end of this year, £68,114 is recoverable by His Majesty's Government.

Following is the answer

On 3rst January, 1948, there were 47 administrative and 120 secretarial personnel of British nationality on the staff of U.N.E.S.C.O. The present head of the Education Section is Dr. Kuo Yu-Shou. Dr. Beeby of New Zealand has recently been appointed Assistant Director-General with special responsibility in the field of education. The total expenditure of this country on U.N.E.S.C.O., including expenditure in the United Kingdom, from the inception of the Preparatory Commission until 22nd March, 1948, has been £274,623. A further sum of £304,530 remains to be paid to the Organisation to meet our commitments until the end of 1948. Of the total sum of £579,153 to be paid by the end of this year, £68,114 is recoverable by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the sources from which paper has been allocated for the periodical "Coal"; and whether this allocation is subject to the same limitations as other allocations for new publications.

Mr. H. Wilson: A licence has been issued authorising the periodical "Coal" to be published, and to use a quantity of paper which has been prescribed in the licence. Supplies of paper will be drawn from normal sources, and will be subject to licence by the Paper Control in the normal way.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a new privately sponsored publication will obtain the same quantity of paper?

Mr. Wilson: If it were to fulfil the same national purpose as this journal, we should certainly give it very favourable consideration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What is that national purpose?

Mr. Wilson: The purpose of making quite clear to the miners and other readers of this paper the need for coal.

Mr. Thomas Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this journal is serving

a very useful purpose in conveying information, not only to the mining community, but to the non-mining community? Is he further aware that this journal is appreciated by its recipients, and that the paper allocation should be increased, if possible, so that more copies can be printed and circulated?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is it not the case that paper is granted for a publication only on a certificate from the Department concerned being given to the Central Office of Information that the publication is essential? Was a certificate given in this case?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, it does not work quite like that. It is given by the Board of Trade after consultation with the Department concerned. Certainly in this case, as in any other case where we have granted an allocation, the Department concerned was satisfied that it was essential.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the new definition of "national interest," whether he will not sanction an increased allocation for a paper for the National Book League which is doing a great deal to increase the exports of books in this country?

Mr. Wilson: That seems to be another question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury from what source paper is obtained for the production of "Something Done" issued by the Central Office of Information; what quantity was used for the first issue, and what quantity is being allocated for subsequent issues.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The 25½ tons of paper used for the first edition was issued by the Stationery Office. It is not expected that any further supply will be required.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Economic Secretary say whether this paper is of a quality which is not available for the ordinary trade, and if the Government must carry on their propaganda at public expense, cannot they be a little more economical?

Mr. Jay: I do not think the quality of the paper was exceptional and in our view


the use of 25½ tons of paper for this excellent non-political publication was abundantly justified.

Mr. Driberg: When my hon. Friend says that he does not expect that any further supply of paper will be required, can he assure the House that he will go on reprinting edition after edition of this excellent publication so long as there is a demand for it?

Mr. Jay: Certainly, if there is a demand.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: If that is the case and further editions are printed, in view of the Government's electoral triumph yesterday, would not they consider changing the name to "Somebody Done."

Mr. Bramall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether book publishers are free to publish any books they like with the paper allocation they receive; or whether there is a system of allocation to ensure that a proper proportion of available paper is used for the production of educational text books.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) on 13th November last.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this reply does indicate that it is possible that educational books, of which there is a terrible lack at the moment, do have a priority over much less essential publications which are appearing?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. We do all we can for educational books, subject to this —we are not prepared to use paper allocation for purposes to dictate to the publishers w hat books they must publish.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when paper supplies for books improve, very special priority will be given to educational books?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. We shall always have in mind an increase of the paper required from special reserve.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Cotton Workers (Housing)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Labour where he is to house workers

whom he is to transfer to the cotton industry, in view of the housing shortage in these areas at the present time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Lodgings are available for some of the workers, and others will be accommodated in existing hostels and in additional ones which are being provided by the adaptation of Service camps and other premises.

Mr. Bossom: Is there not already a very great shortage of housing accommodation in these areas? Where does the Parliamentary Secretary intend putting these people? Why cannot camps be used for this purpose?

Mr. Ness Edwards: These hostels are not usually used for accommodating families, but are used to accommodate single people. It is because we can use the camps for single people that we are now adapting them for this purpose.

Lodging Accommodation, Birmingham

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the pressure on lodging accommodation in Birmingham and overcrowded condition of the Prison Gate Shelter, he will establish a workers' hostel without further delay.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Living accommodation for all workers introduced by my Department into the Birmingham area is, in general, secured before such transfers are made, and the local authority's billeting organisation is usually successful in finding lodgings. The free accommodation at the Prison Gate Mission has only been used in rare instances by my Department, and I appreciate the Mission's assistance. The need for proper hostel accommodation has not been overlooked, and for a considerable time my Department has been seeking premises which could be suitably adapted. I must make it clear that such accommodation, if found, would be mainly reserved for workers introduced by my Department for work of high priority.

Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recently visited this shelter and found 90 people sleeping on the floor because there were no beds or bedding? In these circumstances cannot my right hon. Friend press on with this matter which is one of extreme urgency—I understand that a hostel is to be provided?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, we are anxious to get a hostel there, because there are many vacancies in Birmingham which workers from outside will not take because there is no accommodation for them. This Mission is doing very valuable work, but the 90 people referred to were not sent there by the Ministry. Only in the last resort is a man sent there.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Health with a view to seeing whether more housing facilities cannot be provided in the neighbourhood of works, because we are turning away workmen, as we have nowhere to house them?

Mr. Isaacs: The quickest way to provide accommodation for casual workers is by hostels.

Building Industry, West Midlands

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour how many men are now unemployed in the building industry in the West Midlands.

Mr. Isaacs: Six hundred and twelve at 16th February, 1948.

Sir J. Mellor: Can the Minister say how many of these men were recently discharged by highway authorities, because of the compulsion of the Minister of Transport, to seek work in the building industry.

Mr. Isaacs: Obviously I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Footwear (Coupons)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what principle he now applies to applications by boot and shoe repairers and retailers for increased supplies of coupons; and will he reconsider the application of Mr. Andrew G. Sheret, 57, and 26, Powis Terrace, Aberdeen, for a larger coupon float in view of the need of the district in which Mr. Sheret trades, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. H. Wilson: Boot and shoe repairers do not require coupons for their business and retailers of shoes or other rationed goods are normally given them only if the position of the business is

particularly bad in comparison with its pre-war position, or where there is consumer need or extreme hardship. My hon. and learned Friend will by now have received a letter about the case of Mr. Sheret.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the just principle to apply that of need, with the float increasing according to the needs of the district. Will not rigid adherence to the contrary, work injustice, particularly in the case of a growing district?

Mr. Wilson: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, it is not possible, in view of the present supply position, to increase the allocation to a particular retailer, except where there is a strong case based on consumer need.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a growing district where there is a great need for an increased allocation?

Regional Export Officer (Midland Area)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature and scope of the activities of the Regional Export Officer for the Midland area; if intimate contact has been established with the local chambers of commerce and trade organisations; and if the duties of this officer are being supported by the co-operation of local manufacturers and business firms.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Regional Export Officer in the Midland area, as in other areas, was appointed to render any assistance possible to firms in the region in the development of their export trade. He fulfils this purpose by personal contacts with exporting firms, discussions on methods of trading, supply of information On trade opportunities and conditions in overseas countries. He has established friendly co-operation with local chambers of commerce and trade organisations. Exporters in the Midland area, as elsewhere, are making a valuable contribution to the export trade of this country.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this officer is rendering real service to industries in the Midlands in regard to the export drive?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I have been into this question in Birmingham myself, and


I have received sufficient assurances from manufacturers to show that he is giving very valuable assistance.

Export Forms (Working Party)

Mr. Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the working party on export forms which he appointed in November last.

Mr. H. Wilson: The working party to which my hon. Friend refers was set up to examine forms required by Government Departments in this country and also those for which shippers and others are responsible; and finally those required by overseas governments. It has now completed the first part of its task and has presented a report upon Government forms. The report and recommendations will be summarised in an early issue of the "Board of Trade Journal." After a careful review, the working party was satisfied that there was no undue delay in handling these forms; that the arrangements for dealing with them were sufficiently flexible to meet the circumstances; and that in general their scope and form could not be modified so long as the present controls must be maintained. Certain minor amendments of procedure were suggested, and are being implemented by the departments concerned. I am grateful to the working party, which was fully representative of the interests concerned, for its valuable report and I am glad to find confirmation of my own view that exporters are not worried by unnecessary forms or unimaginative procedure. The working party is now engaged on the second part of its task—the examination of forms required by banks, shippers, etc.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Minister tell us whether there is any hope of the number of these forms being reduced in the near future?

Mr. Wilson: So far as the forms required for direct export are concerned, I think the working party was satisfied that it was impossible to reduce the number.

Clothing Coupons

Mr. Thomas Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to issue the industrial

ten clothing coupons to those persons now employed as home and domestic helpers.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. The industrial ten is given to factory workers because of the abnormal wear and tear on their clothes through working in a factory, but there are schemes already in force under which home helps and domestic helpers employed full time in approved local authority schemes, and also holders of the Diploma of the National Institute of Houseworkers, are assisted with the provision of protective clothing.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the response to the appeal which has been made by the Minister of Labour has not been very ready, because these people who are prepared to work as domestic helpers and home helpers cannot get the industrial ten to help to furnish the clothing which is absolutely necessary, and will he have another look at this?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing to domestic helpers in private establishments, who have to use their own clothes, the same coupon facilities as those provided for local authorities, as they are doing just the same work?

Mr. Wilson: I will have a look at the whole thing, but I do not see very much hope of extending the industrial ten far beyond its present coverage.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there should be such a discrimination between, say, a cook who happens to hold the particular diploma he has mentioned and somebody who does not hold it, but who is doing similar work which is equally hard on clothes?

Mr. Wilson: It is necessary to draw the line somewhere, because it is not possible to extend this concession to domestic workers without equally extending it to the housewife, which is the first thing I should like to be able to do.

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will at once issue emergency clothing coupons to the family of Mr. Weller, Bardfield Road, Finchingfield, Essex, whose bungalow with all its contents, including clothing books, was completely destroyed by fire on 15th March, and who has had no reply to his application for immediate replacement.

Mr. H. Wilson: No completed form of application appears to have been received from Mr. Weller. As soon as I heard of the case, however, I arranged for an officer of the Assistance Board, who act as the agents of the Board of Trade in these matters, to call on Mr. Weller, and he has instructions to deal with this matter urgently. As soon as I receive a report on the case I will communicate with my hon. Friend further.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him if he is aware that no application form was received from this man only because some of the details which are required on such an application form were destroyed with the clothing books, so that he could not fill in the details?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, that question was was gone into very urgently, and special steps were taken to give him interim help in the matter.

Raw Cotton (Selling Price)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the President of the Board of Trade why there have been substantial recent increases in the selling price of raw cotton to manufacturers.

Mr. H. Wilson: As stated in the Press notices issued by the Raw Cotton Corn mission, of which I am sending my hon. Friend copies, the increases are designed to bring their selling prices into line with those ruling in the principal producing countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Egyptian Government Pensions (Payment)

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that certain former employees of the Egyptian Government whose pensions have for many years been paid by the latter into a bank in London and who are permanently resident abroad are now prevented by the Bank of England exchange control department from having the money transferred to them because they are British subjects; and if he will lift the restrictions in these cases and allow the persons concerned to receive their pensions.

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. My attention has recently been drawn to this difficulty,

which has arisen because Egypt is no longer in the Scheduled Territories. There is no question of the transfer of these pensions abroad being prevented by the Bank of England on the grounds that the recipients are British subjects. Responsibility for the payment of the pensions rests with the Egyptian Government. I understand that the Egyptian authorities are only prepared to make payment in Egypt or in the country of the pensioner's nationality, but not in a third country. Enquiries are being made of the Egyptian authorities and I will communicate with the hon. Member when they are completed.

Wines and Spirits (Withdrawals from Bond)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why clearances of wines and spirits from bond have been refused, although duty had been paid some days previously and physical removal was only delayed by shortage of staff and transport, particularly as these withdrawals only represented the normal seasonal trade.

Mr. Jay: The legal powers under which clearances are restricted before a Budget relate to actual physical clearances during the period to which the restrictions apply. It would tend to defeat the object if account were taken of duty paid before the restrictions came into operation.

Mr. Erroll: As these were purely normal withdrawals and there was no suggestion of a panic withdrawal, and as the physical withdrawal was only limited by transport difficulties, could not an exception be made in this case?

Mr. Jay: The procedure which has been followed is, in fact, the normal procedure which has always been followed in these circumstances.

Mr. Erroll: But the circumstances are not normal.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has chosen withdrawals during the months of January and February, 1948, as a basis for imposing a percentage restriction on the withdrawal of wines and spirits from bond prior to the Budget.

Mr. Jay: These months were selected because clearances were about normal then and were considered to represent a fair basis.

Mr. Erroll: Did the hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that a similar restriction has not been made in previous Budgets, with the exception of the Interim Budget, since 1943 and also that the months of January and February were particularly bad months for the trade?

Mr. Jay: My information is that those months showed normal withdrawals and, therefore, provided the fairest basis on which to take this action.

Postwar Credits

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of money to date paid out in postwar credits to those reaching the age of 6o; the number of people to whom payment has been made; and the number of people still entitled to postwar credits.

Mr. Jay: In the year to 31st March, 1947, £58 million was repaid to 1¾ million individuals over the age of 65 (men) or 6o (women) in respect of the first three years' postwar credit and in the current year £55 million has been repaid to date to approximately the same number of individuals mainly in respect of the last two years' credit. The total number of people, of all age groups, still entitled to postwar credit is estimated at 13 million.

Mr. Janner: Can my hon. Friend give an estimate when others are likely to obtain their payment, particularly in view of the age which it is necessary to reach before payment is made?

Mr. Jay: I am afraid I can give no estimate of that sort.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend try to speed it up?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the output of scientific manpower in this country at the present time compares with the estimates made and targets set by the Barlow Committee; and how the estimates with regard to the output of such manpower during the next five years now compare with the Barlow Committee figures.

Mr. Jay: The Barlow Committee recommended the doubling of the prewar out-

put of graduates in Science and Technology as soon as possible. On the best estimate available this increase will be realised within the next two years and is likely to be maintained thereafter. Expansion beyond that level depends upon the rate at which additional accommodation can be provided at the Universities.

Oral Answers to Questions — KITCHEN WASTE COLLECTION

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what the regulations are regarding the collection of kitchen waste by local authorities and which local authorities in Great Britain are under direction to collect or collect and sterilise kitchen waste.

Mr. H. Wilson: In areas where approved central sterilisation plants are provided, Directions under Regulation 54B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, have been served on local authorities to collect and deliver kitchen waste to the plants. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the 340 local authorities included in the compulsory scheme.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Minister say whether anything is being done to increase the number of these sterilising centres, in view of the importance of this waste of processed food for pig swill and poultry food?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. We fully recognise the need and we are doing what we can to increase the number of plants, subject to the availability of material.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Basic Petrol Ration (Statement)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any statement to make about basic petrol.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 18th March.

Mr. Taylor: But could the Minister say on what day after the Easter Recess he will make his promised statement, so that those interested can be here to hear it?

Mr. Robens: I should hope that hon. Members will be here all the time to hear everybody. It will be in the week following the Easter Recess.

Mr. Taylor: Could the Minister say on what day, so that we can put down a Question to give the Minister an opportunity of making the statement?

Supplementary Petrol Allowances

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will explain the delay of six weeks in replying to a letter dated 29th January, sent by Mr. Broxholme Castle, 26, Wilmar Gardens, West Wickham, Kent, to the London Regional Petroleum Officer; and will he take steps to avoid similar delays in the future.

Mr. Robens: I regret the delay in this case, whch was due primarily to heavy pressure of work in the Regional Petroleum Office. The normal delay in dealing with appeals is now two to three weeks.

Sir W. Smithers: Is this not a typical instance of the inevitable breakdown of administration under State control?

Mr. Robens: No, Sir.

Fuel Oil (Imports)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much of the planned increase in civilian oil imports in 1948 compared with 1947, as shown in the Economic Survey for 1948, is due to the increased industrial consumption of fuel oil; how much is required to safeguard civilian stocks; and why increased quantities are required to safeguard civilian stocks in view of the abolition of the basic petrol ration and other economies.

Mr. Robens: The figures shown in the Economic Survey for 1948 allow for the coal-oil conversion programme being carried out in full. On this basis consumption of fuel oil in 1948 would be about 2¼ million tons higher than in 1947, but, as I announced at a Press Conference on the 18th December, transport and supply difficulties have made it necessary to slow down the original programme. With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, it would not be in the public interest to disclose the amounts required to safeguard civilian stocks, but

the savings achieved by the abolition of the basic ration and the other economies made have been taken into account.

Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend see that that explanation is issued to reassure those who have read the Economic Survey and have been rather puzzled by the fact that at a time when economies in petrol are being made more oil is being purchased from overseas?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not the case that we are getting more fuel into this country only at the expense of the basic petrol ration?

Mr. Robens: No, not necessarily.

Mr. Osborne: Will the Parliamentary Secretary examine the position in which manufacturing companies cannot get oil for their new installations, when it is being given to domestic consumers, which is making it very difficult for firms supporting the export drive to do their work?

Mr. Robens: We are aware of this problem, and the Minister will shortly make a statement on the coal-oil conversion programme.

Petrol Ration Regulations (Enforcement)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what representations he has received from provincial Police Forces as to the difficulty of enforcing compliance with the petrol rationing regulations; and what steps he is taking to meet these representations.

Mr. Robens: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "None." The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the absence of those representations, there is a good deal of indignation in the provinces at the way in which these regulations are being evaded; and if he is in any doubt, will he come to me one day when I will show him the remarkable extent to which business is transacted in clubs, especially on Sunday mornings?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that fact.

Mr. Low: Even if the Minister has not received any representations from the provincial Police Forces, has he asked them whether they are finding it easy or difficult to enforce the regulations?

Mr. Robens: Enforcement is left to the police and the Home Office, who will deal with that aspect of the matter.

Hire-Cars and Taxis

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power which associations represented hire-car and taxi operators were represented in the conversations prior to the making of Statutory Instrument, No. 386; what proportion of the hire-car and taxi operators of the United Kingdom those associations claimed to represent; and what suggestion was made to him by those associations that coastal areas should be separately treated.

Mr. Robens: The Passenger Vehicle Operators Association, as representing the operators of hire-cars and provincial taxicabs, and the Taxi Fleet Operators Federation, as representing metropolitan taxicabs. It is not known what proportion of the hire-car and taxi operators are members of these bodies, but there is no doubt that they are in a position to give a considered view of the effect of the order on the operators of private hire-cars and taxis. No representations were made that special concessions should be given to operators in coastal areas, but this matter has subsequently been raised by the Passenger Vehicle Operators Association in informal discussions with the Ministry.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Was it not most imprudent of the Minister, in such an important matter, not to consult any interests operating in Scotland where the distances are such that this order is virtually inoperative and most unjust?

Mr. Robens: These are national organisations, and the Scottish taxicab operators could be members of the Association.

Bankside Power Station

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will render a progress report in respect of the proposed new Bankside Power Station.

Mr. Robens: The contracts for site preparation, for turbo alternators and boilers,

and for the pilot gas washing plant have been let, and work has begun on them. There is a labour force of about 5o men actually at work on the site at the moment.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does that reply take into account the risk involved in operating the plant as a result of the world shortage of fuel oil?

Mr. Robens: Yes, every consideration has been taken into account.

Mr. Erroll: Has the Minister any special responsibility in connection with this power station, as distinct from the others owned by the British Electricity Authority?

Mr. Robens: It does not receive special consideration; but, of course, there is the consideration that this power station must use fuel oil and not coal.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about the elimination of sulphur and other noxious fumes from the oil burning plant it is intended to instal in the Bank-side Power Station.

Mr. Robens: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 5th February, to which I have nothing to add at present.

Overseas Visitors (Travel Association Posters)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (I) if his attention has been called to the poster "Come to Britain for Motoring" issued by the Travel Association; and if he will publicise the facilities available for foreign or overseas visitors, both as to purchase of petrol and the use of hire-cars, and what restrictions are enforced;
(2) if his attention has been called to the Travel Association's poster "Come to Britain for Yachting"; if he will state the petrol allowance available for motor boats, boats with outboard motors, and motor yachts respectively; and whether special allowances are made for overseas visitors;
(3) if, in view of the Government-sponsored Travel Association's posters "Come to Britain" for motoring, yachting, etc., and to help the tourist industry


generally, he will make petrol freely available to all overseas visitors who pay for this with dollars or other hard currencies; and whether he will issue special coupons for this purpose.

Mr. Rabens: I have not seen the posters to which the hon. Member refers. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a Question on 23rd March, has explained the facilities which are to be made available to overseas visitors who bring cars with them, or who purchase cars in this country for export. I regret to say that these facilities cannot be extended to foreign visitors who borrow cars or purchase second-hand cars in this country. My right hon. Friend also explained the special arrangements which are being made to enable overseas visitors to travel freely in hire cars. An allowance of petrol is granted for motor vessels which are let out on hire, and these will be available to overseas visitors if they wish to hire them.

Sir J. Lucas: Will the Minister bear in mind that these posters must have been printed a considerable time beforehand, and are now most misleading; and, in view of the importance of earning dollars, will he bear in mind that my suggestion is merely a sprat to catch, not merely a mackerel but a whale?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir, we are aware of those factors.

Mr. Seollan: What justification can the Minister find for not allowing an overseas visitor to have the use of a friend's car which is today laid up, and to get the necessary petrol? Obviously, these visitors constitute a great asset to the country if they come over.

Mr. Robens: That is perfectly true; but in these matters we must always take into consideration that abuse is so easy. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes; and we must be quite certain that there is not any abuse.

Mr. Eccles: As a lot of foreign visitors are expected in the next two or three weeks, could the Minister allow them to have petrol coupons for use in hire cars before 1st May, which will miss the Easter traffic?

Mr. Robens: There is no need to do that. All the hire-cars and the taxi

operators have their quota of petrol, which they can use for overseas visitors or anybody else.

Captain Crookshank: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is that the Travel Association, which is supposed to be in very close touch with the Government, is able to issue posters which the hon. Member—who is, after all, in the Department chiefly concerned with petrol—says he has never seen?

Mr. Robens: They consult the Board of Trade.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister tell us how visitors can travel through the Highlands, the most beautiful part of this country, unless they get the use of motor cars?

Mr. Robens: There is nothing to prevent overseas visitors from hiring cars, just as anybody else can do.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTION (MEMBER'S DISCLAIMER)

Major Tufton Beamish: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the fact that my name appears as a supporter of the Motion Which stands in the names of a number of Socialist Members of Parliament referring to petrol for purposes of blood sports:

[That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable in present circumstances, when most owners of motor-cars and motor-cycles are unable to obtain petrol, that petrol should be allocated for purposes of stag-hunting, fox-hunting and other blood sports which cannot be regarded as being conducive to good agriculture, the effective use of manpower, or the efficient extermination of vermin.]

May I make it perfectly clear that I did not hand in my name and that I have no intention of doing so and that my name was, therefore, printed in error, and that I would not wish to be associated in any way with a Motion which is so clearly petty-minded, unnecessary and against the interests of the countryside?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has now made his position perfectly plain.

Mr. Driberg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have two Ministers' statements and a private Notice Question, and it is Private Members' time that we are now taking.

Mr. Driberg: In that case, Sir, I will consult you privately.

Mr. Speaker: I was going to make a statement. There is a Private Notice Question. I know that it is very difficult on the last day before the Recess, not to ask leave to ask Private Notice Questions, because there may not be an opportunity for getting an answer within 10 days or so, and I have allowed one. I have disallowed several because all this comes out of the limited Private Members' time in this Session. I am, therefore, also going to appeal to Ministers because this is, I think, the worst day of all for a Minister's statement to be made. There are two statements to be made, and they are important, and I shall be surprised if we do not lose half-an-hour of Private Members' time as a result. I hope that will be borne in mind for the Whitsun Recess when that comes along.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAK DIPLOMAT (VISA)

Mr. Bing: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mrs. Reinerova, a Czechoslovak member of the Diplomatic Corps in London, and at present on a routine visit to Prague, has not been granted a visa to enable her to return to her diplomatic post, and whether he proposes to instruct the British authorities in Prague to issue a visa.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): No, Sir. Mrs. Reinerova is regarded as no longer acceptable to His Majesty's Government in a diplomatic capacity and the Czechoslovak Government have been informed that it is impossible to grant a visa for her return to London.

Mr. Bing: Without in any way going into the merits of the case, is not this method of dealing with it a complete departure from diplomatic practice? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does not my hon. Friend realise that so long as someone is on the Diplomatic List, a visa ought to be granted as a matter of course?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The hon. Member is quite misinformed, and if he did go into the merits of the case he would, I am sure, be entirely in agreement with what I have said.

SHOP TENANCIES, SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): There have been a number of questions in recent weeks as to the possibility of action to stop the arbitrary eviction of shop tenants in Scotland at the coming term. The Government have requisitioning powers under the Defence Regulations to secure a sufficiency of supplies and services essential to the wellbeing of the community or their availability at a fair price and to ensure 'generally that the whole resources of the community are available for use and are used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community. In cases where eviction would result in an 'interference with any of the foregoing purposes these requisitioning powers may be exercised.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this use of emergency powers is quite different from what was contemplated when those powers were granted and that this policy may well be followed by challenge in the courts? Was he not further made aware that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, including those sitting on these benches, were prepared to accept legislation on the lines recommended by his own Committee, the Taylor Committee, and why did he not adopt the straightforward course of following that Committee's Report?

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shared with me the experience of sitting up all last night to try to get some legislation passed, and he will understand that that cannot be counted upon as a secure method of dealing with any problem at the moment.

Mr. Reid: This is side-tracking the House of Commons.

Mr. Woodburn: I am explaining the powers which the Government have. These powers were granted by the House, and each case will have to be examined on its merits, but where any action is taken


which interferes with the vital needs of the community, of course the Government have power to take action.

Commander Galbraith: In view of the exceptional powers which the right hon. Gentleman intends to use and the danger of victimisation if the powers are used without the most full and impartial investigation, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will retain these powers in his own hands and not delegate them?

Mr. Woodburn: These powers can only be exercised by the competent authorities, of which I am one, and these powers will certainly be exercised with the greatest care within the terms of the Act of Parliament. It is quite impossible for me to say what will be done because, as I said, each case must be judged on its merits in a judicial manner.

Miss Herbison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of what comes from the Opposition, his statement will be received with great pleasure by many people in Scotland—by the shopkeepers and tenants of offices who for some time now have been sorely harassed by what is, I am sure, one of the most despicable forms of free enterprise there has ever been in Scotland? I should also like to express to my right hon. Friend the real appreciation of his colleagues on these back benches for the untiring efforts of himself and the Lord Advocate in this matter.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is it not likely that most of these shop premises will be included in town planning schemes for business purposes only? Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to override town planning schemes, after he has acquired these premises in the way that he proposes?

Mr. Woodburn: I can give no indication of my intention, which must be within the terms of the Act and within the terms of the powers which I have read out.

Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an indication whether or not these cases which have all been placed before him will be capable of being dealt with so that the people will not be evicted by 28th May? May I also add that I am quite certain, apart from any opposition there may be in this House, that there is no opposition in the country to the Minister's proposals?

Mr. Woodburn: I can only say to my hon. Friend that, in a judicial matter of this kind it is impossible to prejudge cases before they are examined.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: While I am completely in favour of every possible protection to the small shopkeeper may I ask whether there will be any right of appeal against these requisitionings?

Mr. Woodburn: No one will have any place requisitioned without the right to make representations.

Mr. Willis: While expressing the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to use these powers, may I ask whether his statement means that he does not intend to pursue the question of legislation.

Mr. Woodburn: The Lord President of the Council has already intimated, and I have also intimated, the difficulty of getting legislation through this House in a hurried fashion. All these matters are still under consideration.

Mr. J. L. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the landlords concerned might solve this problem themselves by dealing with their tenants in a less high-handed manner?

Mr. Woodburn: I should think it very desirable for landlords and tenants to make amicable agreements, and to settle their own business without anybody requiring to interfere.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Secretary of State answer the question I previously put to him? Without asking for a definite decision, I would like him to say whether the cases are capable of being dealt with so as to prevent evictions by 28th May?

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that when a matter has to be dealt with in a judicial way, anybody who is responsible for making a judgment cannot intimate his judgment until he has tried the cases.

Mr. McGovern: I was not asking him to do so. I was asking whether the cases would be considered before 28th May. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that the answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. Scollan: If the right hon. Gentleman's powers are put into operation and he finds that the complaints made about


the many cases submitted to him are justified, will he be able to protect the people who have to go out by 28th May? That is all that we are asking.

Mr. Woodburn: I can add nothing further to what I have said.

ANIMAL FEEDINGSTUFFS (RATIONS)

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I appreciate what you said earlier, Mr. Speaker, about Ministers' statements and I will bear it in mind between now and Whitsuntide, but with the leave of the House, I would like to make the following statement:
In the announcement made on 21st August last about the agricultural expansion programme it was indicated that, so far as could then be foreseen, increased quantities of feedingstuffs from abroad should become available by 1949. In the meantime the target acreages for wheat and barley were raised in order that 20 per cent. of both of these crops might be retained on the farm without reducing the amount available for human consumption.
The Government have now completed a survey of present and prospective supplies of animal feedingstuffs, home produced and imported. Large increases in imports have in fact been made, particularly under the recent trade agreements with Russia and the Argentine, and maize imports this year have been running appreciably higher than at the corresponding period last year, but the light home crops last harvest and the continuing world scarcity of broad grains for human consumption make it necessary to exercise prudence. It is therefore impossible to increase rations for any class of livestock for the rationing period beginning 1st May, 1948, having regard to the significant increase in numbers of poultry and breeding pigs compared with a year ago. The higher ration scales now in force and the permitted retention of grain from the 1948 crops, should suffice to maintain this larger pig and poultry population. Increases in ration scales can only be made when there is assurance of adequate supplies to honour ration coupons over a reasonably long period ahead.
In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are examining the possibility of modify-

ing the present method of rationing pigs and poultry so that some rations may be allowed for these classes of stock on holdings which are not now entitled to a basic ration but on which the occupiers would propose to keep pigs or poultry. Such an extension of the scope of the rationing scheme will have first consideration whenever further supplies of feedingstuffs become available.
As I have already announced, pig and poultry keepers can rest assured that present ration scales, including the customary seasonal increase for poultry during the summer months when young pullets for replacement are being reared, will continue without reduction up to 3oth April, 1949. In addition, those pig and poultry keepers who grow wheat or barley will have for the use of their stock up to 20 per cent. of their barley and wheat from the 1948 crop, or an allowance of coarse grains in substitution.
I am aware that our inability to improve ration scales or to widen immediately the scope of the rationing scheme for pigs and poultry will be a cause of disappointment, but despite our recent successes in buying greatly increased quantities of feeding stuffs in very adverse world market conditions, it would be impossible to justify increased allocations above the present level, in the absence of better reasons for confidence that improved rations could be sustained.

Captain Crookshank: In view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, about Ministerial statements being made on these occasions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is anything new at all in the very disappointing remarks which he has just addressed to us?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. The statement is all new to those hundreds of thousands of farmers who are, waiting in the expectation of hearing, I imagine, of increased rations, which, unfortunately, they cannot be given.

Captain Crookshank: As the Minister has summarised what he has said as meaning that there is no chance of any improvement during the present period, does it not, therefore, mean that the promises held out by the Lord President of the Council in August have, as usual, failed to fructify?

Mr. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has absolutely misconceived my statement. I said that


there was no likelihood of an increase in the rations on 1st May this year, but I did not say anything about the whole of the ration year.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, with regard to his quite new announcement—[Laughter.] Well, it is; hon. Members ought to listen.

Captain Crookshank: He said it a month ago.

Mr. Driberg: No, he did not. With regard to his new announcement that he is now reviewing the possibility of varying the whole basis of the rationing scheme, can he also say how soon he is likely to be able to make a definite statement on the matter?

Mr. Williams: No statement would be of value unless it increased the supplies of feedingstuffs available for the purpose of broadening the basis. We are working out a scheme so that when supplies are available we shall be ready.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the extremely disappointing statement which has just been made, will the Minister consider asking his Leader to transfer the purchasing of animal feedingstuffs from the Ministry of Food to the Ministry of Agriculture? We have failed so far to see any co-operation between those two Ministries. Will the Minister also tell me why it is necessary to export steel and coal from this country to Holland only to bring back agricultural products which we can well produce in this country? Why could they not be exported to Russia and the Argentine, where coarse grains are available—

Mr. Speaker: This question is becoming a speech.

Mr. Spence: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a definite representation to his colleagues in the Cabinet that the policy of buying finished products instead of feedingstuffs to enable us to produce food has led to the present situation?

Mr. Williams: The House must be aware that the Government are buying coarse grains in any part of the world where those grains exist.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Are we to understand that the re-allocation of foodstuffs to new domestic pig and poultry keepers, or to new allotment keepers of pigs and

poultry is solely dependent upon available supplies being received and not upon the reserve of supplies which the right hon. Gentleman has already accumulated?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend explain a little further that point, and say whether the completion of his review is dependent on the completion of deliveries, or simply on the signing of agreements?

Mr. Williams: The decision can only be taken when we know that those supplies will be made available for distribution, and I hope hon. Members will not expect me to promise rations to the agricultural industry to encourage breeding when ultimately there will be no rations for the purpose of feeding the animals or birds they have produced.

Mr. Eccles: May I ask the Minister two questions? First, when he enlarges the number of poultry keepers and pig keepers, will he give ex-Service men any preference? Secondly, I think he said those growers of barley and wheat who choose to sell all their produce could claim an allowance of coarse grains in substitution. On what basis will that allowance be claimable? Will it be what the farmer says he needs for his stock, or will it be some minute quantity fixed by the Minister?

Mr. Williams: Should the wheat position become so acute that bread for human consumption was in danger, only then would it not be possible for farmers to retain 20 per cent. of their wheat this year on the farms to feed to their own livestock. However, if they were not able to retain that 20 per cent. of wheat, then they have a definite guarantee of its equivalent in weight and value of coarse grains to substitute for the wheat.

Mr. Eccles: Will the Minister say anything about ex-Service men?

Mr. Williams: We have always given some little preference, to crippled ex-Service men at all events.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we were buying foodstuffs wherever available. Did he not read the statement made in this House by the Minister of Food that he


deliberately refrained from buying feedingstuffs which are available in the Argentine?

Mr. Williams: If the right hon. and learned Member expects His Majesty's Government to pay any fancy price that any government in any part of the world cares to ask, then I hope he will inform his constituents that that is his financial conception of things.

Mr. Reid: I was only seeking accuracy from the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Richard Acland: Is there any prospect of changing the basis of allocation of poultry feedingstuffs from the number of birds kept, to the number of eggs supplied to a packing station? Is that under discussion?

Mr. Williams: That matter has been examined many times.

Mr. Wilson Harris: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to move the Closure of this Debate?

An Hon. Member: Give the farmers a chance.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is impossible to move the Closure, though it would not be received unfavourably by me, I must say.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether they are aware that this statement will cause the deepest possible disappointment in farming areas all over Scotland?

Major Tufton Beamish: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what success has attended the Government's efforts to buy a part, at any rate, of the large exportable surplus of feedingstuffs for livestock which was known to exist in Roumania as long ago as last September? Can he tell the House something about that?

Mr. Williams: My information is that whatever coarse grain Roumania has been willing to sell on reasonable terms sometimes it is a question of actual hard cash, sometimes it is a question of supplying equipment from this country that we do not happen to possess—has been accepted. As far as I am aware, all reasonable offers have been accepted by us.

BILL PRESENTED

MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL

"to make provision for inquiry into the existence and effects of, and for dealing with mischiefs resulting from, or arising in connection with, any conditions of monopoly or restriction or other analogous conditions prevailing as repects the supply of, or the application of any process to, goods, buildings or structures, or as respects exports," presented by Mr. Wilson; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Key and Mr. Belcher; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

HOLIDAY RESORTS (HOTEL INDUSTRY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

12.25 p.m.

Mt. C. S. Taylor: I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity to raise in this House today the question of the difficulties of our seaside holiday resorts. There was a time in the middle of the night when I thought that this opportunity would slip from us, and again, during the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, I thought the opportunity would pass.
I should explain that the holiday industry includes not only hotels, boarding houses and the business of hotel keeping, but also a great many, other industries associated with holiday making; for example, theatres, cinemas, piers, and other places of amusement. Indeed, in a holiday centre the greater part of the community exists upon the holiday maker directly or indirectly. I do not wish to weary the House today with a long history of the wartime troubles and difficulties of our seaside holiday resorts. This story has been told before, but I feel that I should mention one or two matters as a background to the case which we are putting forward today.
When the National Government were in office Sir William Jowitt, as he then was—now Lord Chancellor—was appointed as the Minister responsible for the rehabilitation of our seaside resorts so badly damaged during the war years, both by enemy action and by the ban imposed by the then Government upon visitors wishing to enter those areas. For five years many of our South and East Coast areas remained derelict. I remember Sir William Jowitt visiting my constituency and discussing our problems at that time. Indeed, he showed great sympathy and understanding, but I remember also that there was very little help forthcoming. I remember the consternation which greeted Sir William Jowitt's suggestion that if holiday makers stayed at hotels and boarding houses they would have to sleep between blankets with no sheets, sand that they would also have to take towels with them. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, when you last slept in a bed without sheets, but I

am sure you would agree that it is not your idea and it is certainly not my idea of spending a happy and pleasant holiday.
Subsequently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) was appointed to succeed Sir William Jowitt as the Minister in charge of our reconstruction. Again the Government did nothing to help. The resorts did their best at that time, and they have done so since. Wherever possible, they have done their best with a splash of paint to brighten up the war-ravaged exteriors, and they have pulled up the barbed wire and substituted gaily coloured flowers in its place. Last year the resorts had a bumper season, and it looked as if the people who had lost so much of their business and savings during the war years were about to come into their own again. In addition, the Government thought fit to support the Travel Association. They formed a body called the British Tourists and Holidays Board under the able chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell, and a great "Come to Britain" drive was launched in the world. Visitors and tourists were encouraged to come to Britain from America and from other hard currency areas. It is estimated that last year tourists from abroad spent something like £25 million in this country, which is an extremely valuable invisible export. We hope that in a few years' time that figure can be increased to something like £100 million spent in this country by tourists from overseas.
Everything began to look bright, and the holiday industry looked as if at last it was going to thrive in this country. Then last Autumn, as the House knows only too well, the basic petrol ration was withdrawn from the so-called unessential motorists. To the motorist, to put it mildly, it was a tremendous irritation, but the effect on certain seaside and country hotels and hoarding houses has been simply staggering. The Hotels and Restaurants Association, and the Residential Hotels Association, which, by the way, I hope are soon to amalgamate, have been in close touch with their members since basic petrol was withdrawn The figures show that London has hardly been affected at all, and in some seaside resorts the larger hotels have not yet been greatly affected. But, even in places like Eastbourne, where, before the war, there was a really good train service, and which now has a moderately good service, the smaller


hotels, which of course greatly outnumber the bigger hotels, are nothing like fully booked for Easter. The much more numerous smaller hotels and boarding houses have suffered very considerably, whereas last year they were doing excellent business.
Country hotels are even worse off, and it would be fair to say that this type of establishment—and I have figures to prove it—has lost, on an average, at least 5o per cent. of its total business, while there are many individual cases in which the loss has been considerably more than 5o per cent. I have seen some of the replies received from the hotel associations. For example, an hotelier wrote from the Lake District that, with the exception of Christmas week, hotel and bar receipts had been practically nil. Another from Devonshire writes, "We have not taken enough to cover staff wages for weeks." From Southsea, again with a moderately good train service, a letter came stating, "We have been running at a heavy loss since November." Another letter from Devon stated, "Owing to the ban on petrol, the hotel has been forced to close." A letter from Westgate-on-Sea said, "We have been empty since November." From Chagford, a resort in Devonshire with a population of about 2,000, which is 85 per cent, dependent upon the tourist trade, we learn that unless basic petrol is given back, the resort, as a resort, faces extinction.
I could give lots of other examples, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and will give examples from their own constituencies. The Minister who is to reply may say that some of the resorts are doing well at present, and may quote figures and reports from newspapers showing that many resorts are fully booked for Easter. It may be true, and some resorts may be booked up as far as the larger hotels are concerned, but unless a great many more trains are made available during the summer rush holiday months, July, August and September, that temporary prosperity cannot possibly continue. I cannot believe that the railway services of this country can cope with the number of people who will want to go away during the summer months.
The longer the Minister delays his promised statement about basic petrol,

the more adverse effect it has on hotel keepers in the holiday areas. The Government must understand that the seaside and country hotels do not depend for their survival entirely upon visitors they get during the months of July and August, nor can they survive only on tourists from overseas. They must have, as it were, a steady cushion of business throughout the whole of the year to be able to pay and retain key staffs. Once such a staff is dispersed, it will be almost impossible to gather it together again. The effect of the Control of Engagement Order, 1947, will be that if staff have to be dispensed with by hotels and boarding houses when they are empty, because of lack of visitors, that staff will be directed into other engagements. Hotels and boarding houses will not then be able to re-engage them when they again wish to give full services.
I draw a distinction between hotel keeping and shop keeping. If a shoe shop, for example, which sells 5o pairs of shoes a week, is cut down to 20 pairs a week, when more shoes become available the shop can sell 100 pairs a week, but the hotel with 25 bedrooms can never recoup the losses of bad times. Whatever is done, the hotel can only let those 25 bedrooms. If the Minister cannot give an assurance about the return of basic petrol today, and I know he is not going to do that, I ask that special steps be taken to see that country and seaside hotels, and other holiday industries which have been so disastrously hit because of the ban on basic petrol, are assured their survival.
In coastal areas during the war a moratorium was declared, and various reliefs were given to hotels and boarding houses in the way of rating relief, and so on. It may be necessary now for the Government to produce a plan whereby relief from rates and excise duty, and other help, might be accorded to those hard hit individuals. If that is considered a feasible proposition, the Government must also refund local authorities for any relief which they give in rates. Have the Government thought out any plan on those lines? It is not for private Members but the Government to produce a plan, and I hope we shall hear something about it today. If the Government think that American capitalists are going to invest the money they make from films in this country in an industry which is being slowly killed


because of the refusal to restore basic petrol, they are wrong. If the President of the Board of Trade thinks that his insult to the British hoteliers was favourably received, he is also wrong. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman denies ever having made the statement attributed to him that the Americans could come over and show us how to run our hotels. It is a curious fact that nearly every national newspaper attributed that remark to him.
Finally, I urge that the Order giving effect to catering wages provisions should be reconsidered. At a time when the Government wish to see wages and profits pegged, it is unfair to put further, and in some cases unworkable, conditions on an industry which is already "punch drunk." I hope we shall hear from the Government that they propose to do something to prevent wholesale bankruptcy among these holiday caterers.

12.40 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I sec from the number of hon. Members present that we are likely to have a long discussion, and I will, therefore, keep my remarks as short as I can. This Debate has been initiated as the result of the activities of a number of us on the Resorts Committee. We have considered the situation in this industry over the last few months. We had hoped to be able to ventilate the state of the industry in good time for Easter, in order to help the Ministers who are to make vital decisions after the Recess. We hope that there will be a return of some basic petrol this summer, and that the Minister will be persuaded today to do something to bring that about. It would not put this industry on its feet—that will take years to do—but it would help to tide it over.
No doubt, in reply, facts and figures will be given about the number of bookings in the hotels. I am told that in Yarmouth it is difficult to get bookings for the coming season in the hotels, and that the same is the case in many other resorts. From that, some people may assume that the industry is doing well, and that there is no need to worry. I look upon the position from a different angle. I hope that the difficulties that confront the seaside resorts will be made known, not only to our own people, but to foreigners, and particularly to those people from the other

side of the Atlantic who, we hope, will be coming here to help to keep our economy going. It should be made clear to them that we have a big resorts industry here, and that if it gets any help as the result of Marshall Aid, it will not be money frittered away, because this is an industry which is vital to our modern economy.
It is well to remember that since the internal combustion engine became part of our modern economic life, it has had a great effect on this industry. As a result, there has been a great dispersal of holiday resort activities. In the old days, the railway took people to a seaside resort; and they walked or took a cab to their hotel near the sea, and no other travelling was required. During the inter-war period people in the smaller income groups especially have been encouraged to buy cars, mainly on the hire-purchase system, and they have been able to go further afield. Over the last generation, the people catering for holiday traffic have spread themselves out, relying on trade from people using cars, motor-cycles and coaches. Many set up catering businesses after the war, when the basic petrol came back. Then came the ban, and we all know at what cost to many in the catering trade, apart from the hotels.
Many men back from the Services have used their gratuities to buy tables and chairs and open small cafes fronting on the streets in the seaside towns, in the Highlands and in Wales, and they relied on casual trade coming to them during the summer months, and, possibly, during the winter months, from people using motor cars, stopping to have meals. I was in Great Yarmouth last week-end, and I do not think that I saw one motor car or motor-cycle stop near any of the small cafes. I can mention one place where I often have a meal. It was bought at an inflated price last year. During the last few months, their only customers have been one or two a week, and overhead expenses are eating away what they had saved. In a position like that, unless there is some speedy improvement, they face bankruptcy. This is just as much an industry for our people as any of those great industries which have a direct dollar earning capacity.
If we have lively places like Great Yarmouth, Eastbourne, Brighton and so on, with the facilities for receiving our people who make the direct dollar exchange, and


give them recreation and fresh air, it is part of the dollar earning process. At our last committee meeting, it was pointed out that in places like the mountainous parts of central Wales many families who invested their savings in small hotels are now facing bankruptcy. The Government should bear in mind that these people who are part of our economic system are now faced with great difficulties, and they should be looked after, whether they have a big organisation behind them or not. They are individual members of our State who are trying to keep our economic machine going.
Yarmouth is an outlet for the Broads, any many ordinary working people have bought small motor boats. Last Sunday, I was talking to a man in my constituency who, when the last Budget came along, gave up smoking and going to the pictures and found his enjoyment in going in his car to the Broads where he kept his motor boat. Then the basic petrol ration was stopped. If it could now be found possible to restore the basic ration, he and many others like him would be quite happy, and they would feel that they were getting a fair share out of the dollars which have to be expended. One gallon for each 10 Sundays in the year, he said, would bring him the happiness that he has lost. That factor should be borne in mind.
There is a further point which has already been touched on, and that is the question of a moratorium. If there is no return of the basic petrol allowance many people will be facing bankruptcy. They will be in a position similar to that which they experienced throughout the war. I am told by people in my part of the world that the moratorium, as carried out last time, under the Defence Evacuated Areas Regulations, 1940, was not of great benefit to them. A moratorium is only a postponement of recurrent liabilities, and the last state is worse than the first. Experience in those years has shown that 75 to 85 per cent. of business in the catering industry has changed hands owing to its ruinous effect. People have had to sell up, and speculators have come in and bought up the businesses. Those who know have pointed out to me that what is needed is compensation for any loss caused by the withdrawal of the basic petrol ration or contributory effects of the ban.
If the Government really want to do something for the resorts industry, the best thing they can do is to pay attention to what is said here today, and, realising the black picture we shall have to paint, try their best to see that the Russell Vick Committee, which I understand reported yesterday, finds some way of stopping the "flogging" of petrol on the black market. They should bear in mind that if they could give us some return of the basic petrol, if only for a few summer months, they would, at least, keep the industry "ticking over," and we should have another 12 months in which to face difficulties if and when they come along.

12.54 p.m.

Sir Stanley Holmes: I entirely agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Member for East-bourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn). On many occasions every summer I go down to the East Coast by road. I find that I pass many little cars, with the husband sitting in front and the wife sitting beside him, often with a child on her knee. The luggage, including deck chairs, and perhaps a perambulator, is strapped on the back. Inside at the back of the car is all the rest of the luggage, and perhaps a couple or more children, and even a dog. They are all looking very uncomfortable, but no one is caring in the least, because they are going away for a holiday for a fortnight, and they are going from door to door. That point, of going from door to door, is of the greatest importance, not only to the seaside resorts, but to the mother of a family, to whom it makes a tremendous difference. A number of people, if they cannot go in that way, and if the railway service is bad, will not go to that particular place, and probably will stop at home altogether.
A family, such as I have just described, who are going from Walthamstow to Clacton can go from door to door if they have the petrol. If they cannot have any petrol, the mother of the family has far more trouble in getting all the luggage ready. She has to take everything, including the family and the dog, from their house to Walthamstow station. From Walthamstow they have to go to Liverpool Street, then across Liverpool Street, and queue for perhaps two or three hours in order to get a place in


the train to Clacton. When they get to Clacton they have, once more, to transfer themselves from the station to the boarding house, or apartment house, where they intend to stay. They would be able to do the journey by road if they were given four gallons of petrol—two gallons to go there and two gallons to come back. If I may use somewhat Micawber-like language, I would say, "Four gallons, result happiness; no petrol, result misery."
I would go a little further than the preceding two hon. Members. This matter of basic petrol is a temporary measure. We hope the time will come when petrol will be on a free market and there will be no need to come to the Government for licences, or anything else. There is, however, one point concerning the prosperity of seaside resorts which is of a permanent nature. Although it does not concern the Department of the Minister who is to reply, I hope he will pass on what I say to the appropriate Minister. I refer to the permanent effect upon seaside prosperity of the staggering of holidays. This was an urgent question before the war.
My hon. Friend, then the Member for Blackpool, who is now the hon. Member for South Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) was fortunate enough, in 1938, to obtain in the ballot the right to introduce the Motion when you, Mr. Speaker, were called upon to leave the Chair on the Civil Estimates. He moved, and I had the privilege of seconding, a Motion concerning the staggering of holidays. I forget how many millions of people were, at that time, receiving holidays with pay, but today, of course, there are many more. The question of the staggering of holidays was urgent in 1938. It will be 10 years ago next month since that Debate, and nothing has been done. The staggering of holidays has been a complete failure. A hotelier at Clacton-on-Sea has told me that he could let his rooms six times over for August, but that he has no bookings at all for May and June, and very few for the first two weeks in July. I hope the Government, or the Minister of Education, will realise that this matter is in his hands. The staggering of holidays has failed because the scholastic year ends in the summer term. There are examinations in June, and prize givings in July. Parents will not go away without their

children, and they will not lessen the chance of their children making good progress-at school by taking them away during that particular term.
The solution is that the scholastic year should end either with the Spring term, before Easter, or with the Autumn term, which finishes just before Christmas. The latter, probably, would be the most satisfactory time of all, because Christmas time appears to be a good time for having prize givings. I commend to the Minister of Education this method by which he can not only help our seaside resorts, but also many families, who would then be able to get away in comfort for some of the best months of the year like June, instead of having to write 20 or 30 letters to try to get accommodation in August or September. If that is done, great advantage will accrue, not only to the seaside resorts, but also to many families in all parts of the country.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I will endeavour to make my points briefly, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to make a contribution, and I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to hear them. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for raising this very important issue. I agree with practically everything which has been said during this Debate, and I reinforce the plea for a proper staggering of holidays such as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes). I will not go further into that subject, because if he is fortunate enough to be called, my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) will have something to say on that important matter.
I wish to emphasise the great importance of the holiday industry to the resorts themselves. In our country many of the resorts are wholly dependent on the tourist industry. If that industry fails, the town fails. If the industry is destroyed, the community suffers. My hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool and myself are fortunate in that we represent a resort which is not wholly dependent on the holiday industry. There is in Blackpool a fair amount of light industry. During the war, unlike some of the resorts on the East Coast, we were fortunate because a great deal of trade


was brought to the town as a result of the place being used as a centre by the Royal Air Force. Also we were fortunate because Government Departments went there and brought in new work and new opportunities for our people. Again, we were fortunate because there was erected at Squires Gate a large Government factory which employed many thousands of people.
However, even for us the times are changing. Since the end of the war the Royal Air Force has gone. It seems to be the policy of this Government to remove from our town a number of Government Departments, and now, with the ending of contracts for the aluminium house, the large factory at Squires Gate is closing down. So far, the Government have not found any new tenants to operate the factory and provide alternative employment for the people. Increasingly, we are being forced into the position that we must depend more and more upon our holiday and catering industry.
I have noticed that since the abolition of the basic petrol ration there has been a very steady deterioration in the condition of the industry, not only in Blackpool but in other resorts. During the winter many resorts have a certain amount of weekend trade from motorists, which enables them to keep open throughout those months. This winter, however, there have been many hotels with very few guests, and many restaurants where one found that there were more waiters than there were people to serve. With conditions like that, the industry will decay very rapidly. Through their Ministers, the Government have frequently spoken of the need for attracting foreign tourists to this country. They have tried to stimulate the hotel industry to greater efforts.
I suggest to the Secretary for Overseas Trade that it is absolutely impossible to run the hotel and catering industries of the country on the basis of catering for foreign tourists alone. Large staffs must be maintained, and the places must be kept open regularly to attract these people and to bring in the hard currency which we need. But without the ordinary bread and butter year-in year-out British holiday maker, these hotels will not be able to carry on. In the absence of the basic petrol ration, our holiday industries have lost a great deal of their support.

In many parts of the country establishments are nearing the end of their financial tether.
I will quote figures to illustrate the problem. Before the war, in Blackpool, during the holiday seasons the police used to take a census of all the motor vehicles which came into the town. The last census took place in Easter, 1938, from Friday to Monday. During those four days 47,592 motor cars came into the town. It is estimated that each carried an average of four passengers. That means that 190,368 people visited the town by road in private cars. Those figures are entirely exclusive of people who came by coach. In addition, 4,520 visitors arrived by motor bicycle. Therefore, approximately 200,000 visitors came to the town during those four days by private cars or motor bicycles. I believe and I think that my view will be substantiated this week-end—that many of these people who came by road before the war would come by road now if we had basic petrol, but in the circumstances they will not pay a visit to the town at all.
I urge the Minister to do what he can to assist the holiday resorts. Many places fear that they will have the worst Easter they have had for a long time. A poor Easter will follow what has been a very poor winter. I ask the Minister to use what influence he can with his colleagues in the Government to provide some petrol in the interest of the holiday industries and to do it as soon as possible before it is too late.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. John E. Haire: I wish to say a few words on behalf of our riverside resorts. Too often it is forgotten that many people spend holidays in these resorts, and already in our discussion today hon. Members have concentrated on the question of the seaside resorts. This is all part of the same industry. I particularly wish to make an appeal, because there are a number of riverside resorts in my constituency. At seaside resorts, usually a populated area develops which often can sustain the catering and hotel industry or, at any rate, keep it alive under present conditions; whereas riverside resorts usually are in small areas where an hotel depends on outside traffic and on weekenders throughout the year, with the holiday makers in summer. In most cases,


it is not a sufficiently populated area to sustain the hotel industry alone.
The hotels in my area are suffering very much indeed as a result of the cut in petrol. No longer do we get the weekend traffic. These hotels are trying to maintain staff at a very great disadvantage. They know perfectly well that if they let their staff go it will be very difficult to recover them. They are trying very hard to hold on against great odds. I ask the Minister to remember, with whatever generosity he intends to show this afternoon, that the riverside resorts are facing a very serious position.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Lambert: We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for raising this matter. All who have spoken have stressed the gravity of the situation as it affects holiday hotels. I wish to speak on the inland hotels of Devonshire. No county can offer the holiday maker greater attractions than the County of Devonshire, and, for that reason, it has a very large holiday industry. The abolition of basic petrol came as a great blow to the hotel keepers as a whole, but no section has suffered so much as the keepers of small inland hotels. Their gross takings have fallen by at least 80 or 85 per cent., and one hotel-keeper on the outskirts of Dartmoor has written to tell me that for the three months ending 3rst January, 1947, his gross takings were well above £600, while for the three months ending 31st January, 1948, they were under £100.
In addition to losing revenue, these hotel-keepers, many of them ex-Service men who bought their hotels on mortgages, are having to meet heavy increased expenditure. The rateable value of their hotels is being raised, and one hotel in my constituency has had its rates put up by 100 per cent., while the rates of another have gone up 200 per cent. I understand that these increases will also cause their Excise licences to be increased, because these are based primarily on the rateable value of the hotel. I would, therefore, urge upon the Secretary for Overseas Trade the necessity to investigate the best way to help these people to meet their rates and taxes.
Another difficulty which they are meeting is the cost of their staff, which, under

the recent catering regulations, is continually going up, so that these hotel keepers in Devon are faced with a smaller revenue and vastly increased expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) mentioned Chagford, a small town on the edge of Dartmoor. This town is entirely dependent for its livelihood on motor tourist traffic, from which over 50 per cent. of the population derive their living. It is not an isolated example, because there are many other such towns in Devon which, as in the case of Chagford, are miles away from the nearest railway station which, incidentally, has an extremely bad railway service. Therefore, I would urge upon the Government to take every possible step, before it is too late, to see that the small hotels in the country do not gradually fade away. If they do, not only will our own people be unable to have holidays in this country, but we shall lose a very valuable potential earner of dollars.

1.13 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: Ministers who work in London are rather urban-minded, and it may be as well that a Member of Parliament representing a widespread countryside like our beautiful Lake District should tell them something about our point of view. In the last few months —and I am sure that this applies to many other rural and seaside areas—we have had hundreds of letters, not merely from individual citizens, hotel and boarding house keepers and those interested in all aspects of the catering trade, but from little country garages, farm workers and farmers themselves.
The suburban outlook of the Government ignores the special difficulties of the countryside, and if that were not so, they would not so ruthlessly have cut off the petrol supply to these districts. Much has been said about petrol, and I do not want to say more than that it is essential, not only that the basic ration should be restored, but that many of the regulations relating to the use of petrol by individuals and by those concerned, directly or indirectly in the holiday trade, should be revised. But that will not be enough. The hotel and boarding house industry has gone through a bad time in war, and now suffers from a multiplication of troubles, relief of any one of


which, or, better still, of all, would go a long way towards helping them.
I have had communications from associations in the Lake District, from Morecambe and Heysham, and from many individual hotel keepers telling me their troubles. I wish to refer to some of them. From the point of view of the hotel keeper, there have been increases in prices of almost everything he has to buy —paper, furniture, crockery, linen—which has Purchase Tax of 125 per cent. upon it, apart from the price going up—many foods which are unrationed and even some that are, but he is not allowed to raise his prices for meals. The price of a meal is fixed at 5s., but some hotel keepers tell me that it just is not worth while keeping the stock and producing the materials for a meal, when they are not even sure they are going to sell it for that figure. No harm is done to the national economy if that price is raised. Indeed, it might draw off some of the surplus money if people had to pay a little more, which they are quite willing to do, and it might do something to meet the inflation danger.
Then there is the question of wages of the staff. Under the catering regulations, a higher standard of wages and conditions is expected for all who work in hotels. Provided that it can be met and afforded by the industry, and that the industry can survive, we shall all be in favour of that, but there are great anxieties whether it can, and I ask that the control of prices in some cases in this particular industry should be reconsidered. In July, the National Health Service charges are to commence, and so one burden after another is put on the hotel and boarding house keeper, while no opportunity of relief is given to him. Anyone who goes to stay at an establishment must take his ration book if he stays for more than two days. No doubt, these are all arguable points, but the accumulation of them makes the conduct of this industry extremely difficult.
Considering that we were up all night, I think there is an extraordinarily good attendance here, especially on this side of the House. I do not propose to go over the points so well covered by my colleagues who have spoken, and I will conclude with these words. The 'catering, hotel, boarding house and holiday

industries make three contributions to the well-being of the country. Let it not be forgotten that this country is short of housing and of beds. Many of the beds in our hotels and boarding houses are alternative beds, but they make a tremendous contribution to the general bedding-down of our people, and, if we allow them to be closed down, we shall merely create more overcrowding generally. I will not elaborate that argument, but I submit that it is part of the housing of our people at a time when all housing is scarce.
Secondly, this industry makes a real contribution to the health of our people in this dreary time, in enabling them to get away and have some small measure of comfort, convenience and amenities. Lastly, it is a direct and indirect dollar earner. For all these reasons, I ask the Ministers concerned to think in terms not merely of a little petrol, but of the well-being of this most important and valuable industry.

1.20 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I will not go over all the points about the lack of petrol, but that lack and the question of food rationing are helping to ruin the hotel industry. In fact, I can now understand why the Minister suggested the other day that the Americans might invest their film earnings in our hotels; it was, presumably, because nobody else would buy them. If the Americans do put money into our hotels on Government advice, they will certainly want some sort of guarantee that basic petrol will be available. If people have to come by train, they will not travel to stay at a hotel for two nights or a short weekend. Likewise, people from outside a town will not come into it for the purpose of attending any form of entertainment or function that may be going on in an hotel because of the risk that they may not be able to catch their last bus back. All this means that hotels in towns are doing very badly, and that hotels in the country are being ruined.
There is a point I wish to raise about commercial travellers. If they are in town for more than two days, they have to give up their ration books, which means that they have no rations left for the weekend. In order to avoid that happening, when they come to town for three or four days, they have to change


hotels, which is an inconvenience, and possibly an extra expense for them. But it is far worse for the hotels, because it means a double lot of bed linen. When I raised this matter the other day with the Minister of Food and asked if some special card might not be given to commercial travellers in order to avoid this state of affairs, he referred me to a reply he had given earlier to another hon. Member. On looking it up, I found that it was to the effect that a packed cheese ration could be given to a workman on the recommendation of his union. I cannot see what that had to do with it.
Another point I wish to raise—and I know that the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Mr. Snow) would back me up in this—is that, at the moment, we are in great difficulty over the rates. Portsmouth is a blitzed city. After the war, we were given quite a generous Government grant to tide us over until we could rebuild. We are now no longer able to rebuild owing to the shortage of materials, and because we cannot get the necessary licences. Therefore, we no longer get the Government grant, which we very much miss and which we might have expected had the opportunity to rebuild been there. If the Minister would look into these points I know that it would greatly please by constituents, and, I am sure, also the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: I do not think that anybody listening to this Debate could fail to be struck by the remarkable unanimity reached in all quarters of the House, and I trust that the Minister will not prove an exception. I hope that he will take due note of that fact.
I view the problem under discussion with all the more concern because I recently spent some time abroad and had an opportunity of seeing what very fierce competition the British hotel industry has to contend with in a great number of other countries. During the last 18 months I have stayed in hotels and tourists centres in four continents. Everywhere, in their different ways, our rivals are gaining the ground which we are losing. In countries where free enterprise flourishes, the hotel keepers take advantage of that, and are doing very successfully. In the countries which are under an authoritarian regime,

I found that, in every case, the tourist industry is the favoured child of the State instead of being the Cinderella, as in this country. Indeed, I sometimes wonder, when hon. Members opposite come back so full of enthusiasm from their dives beneath the Iron Curtain, whether the excellent food and drink they received has not something to do with it. It is all the more distressing to come back and find our own tourist industry, which has to compete with these very formidable rivals, struggling under such a very great, and, to my mind, by no means necessary disadvantage.
I represent two very important tourist centres, important in different ways. The first is Morecambe, which, perhaps, can be called the most important tourist centre of its class in the North of England. I say that with all the more confidence in the absence of what might be termed the "Blackpool bloc," which we have already heard this morning. The other centre is Lancaster, with its historical traditions. Both those centres have every possible natural advantage. They have magnificent country round them, they are both extremely attractive towns, and they have the natural industrial enterprise of their inhabitants to rely upon. The device of the Morecambe Corporation sums it up very well; it is, "Health abounds, Beauty surrounds." But, in spite of those natural advantages, the tourist industry, generally, in both those places is working under a very great disadvantage.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes, but there are one or two specific points I would like to touch upon. The first is the requisitioning of hotels and its results. Those hotels, as hon. Members are aware, were requisitioned during the war for the use of members of the Forces and by Government servants. But there has been very great delay in derequisitioning them. The result is that several of the largest hotels in my constituency are still either not ready or only just ready—three years after the end of the war—to receive visitors.
I feel that there has been a failure on the part of the Government to make adequate amends for the damage done to those hotels during their period of requisition. Hotel keepers, and particularly small boardinghouse keepers, are placed


at a very great disadvantage because their furniture, bedding and crockery have been destroyed, and because, in present circumstances, it is almost impossible for them to replace these articles. Furthermore, there have been very great obstacles placed in the way of any sort of expansion. It is all very well to say that the hotels are booked up; we know that only too well. The trouble is that there ought to be far more hotels and far more room available so that we could attract more tourists from outside.
All these worries, as other Members have remarked, fill up a large part of our mail bags. All these worries, coming on top of the normal worries of the householder, take up three-quarters of the time of the average small hotel keeper, who has to spend a great part of his time filling up forms. To use a military term which my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) is constantly using, the tail is beginning to wag the tooth in the hotel industry.
The other point I should like to touch on briefly is the abolition of the basic petrol ration and the restriction of the use of hire cars to a 20-mile radius. As it happens, both Lancaster and Morecambe are centres of excursions to areas which cannot be reached by train and are outside the 20-mile limit. The result is that a great many tourists who would have gone to these areas are being discouraged from doing so, and many private car hirers, who are often disabled ex-Service men who have spent their gratuities on buying their cars, are unable to survive financially—they find themselves with a useless car on their hands, their health and gratuities gone and nothing for them to do. In addition to the hotel keepers and car hirers, there are innumerable other businesses in towns like Morecambe which directly or indirectly depend on the tourist trade, such as the catering and entertainment industries, which are now crippled. I hope, therefore, that the Government will abandon their policy of throwing away the golden opportunity this industry offers of earning dollars, and will substitute a more realistic policy which will give the industry the chance it deserves.

1.34 P.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: This Debate will be incomplete if the voice of Scotland is not added to

the harmonious appeals which have been made. All that has been said in regard to the Southern parts of the country applies with equal force, and in some cases with greater force, in the case of Scotland. A lot of small hotels scattered about in sparsely populated areas in Scotland are suffering at the present time from two disadvantages. The first disadvantage is this question of petrol, which has been dealt with adequately already; I do not, therefore, propose to go over the ground again. The second disadvantage is that these small hotels now have a scale of wages, which was laid down for large hotels, made applicable to them. This scale has been foisted on them, and if they continue in present circumstances to adhere to this national wage they will go out of existence, The Government should look into this question and provide a system of wage rates more applicable to this type of hotel.
I have just come back from America, and while I was in that country I talked literally to dozens of Americans, who said, "We should like to come to Britain but—" I tried to probe the "buts," and I found that there were many, but that this question of accommodation, food and petrol was the chief one. There has been insufficient publicity to put it across to the Americans that petrol will be available to them if they come over to this country. Time and again, I was told by Americans that they would be taking food out of our mouths if they came over to this country. It is very difficult to plead that we are hungry and hard up, and at the same time encourage them to come to this country. If this attitude of mind could be removed by some form of publicity in the United States, it would be the quickest way to get more dollars, which0 this industry can earn. I ask the Government to look into this question of wage rates in the small country hotels, and to let the Americans know that we really want them and that our hotels are reasonably comfortable.

1.37 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Aberdeen, as everyone knows, is one of the most beautiful seaside resorts of Scotland, situated between two noble rivers, backed by mountains, with the sea in the foreground. The two biggest hotels in the city are out of action. The Station Hotel has recently been derequisitioned but it


is unfit for occupation as a hotel, unless a licence is granted to put it into proper repair. The Palace, which is the largest hotel in the city, is out of action because it was practically burnt down some years ago. Nothing has been done to repair it. I suggest that the Minister should get into touch with the Minister of Works to see that licences are granted so that these two hotels which are badly needed for the summer season can be put in order.
My second point concerns the golf course, which is one of the finest courses in the North of Scotland. It is tarnished by having a military post on the first green. I have put Questions in this House about it, and promises were made to have the post removed, but this has not been done. Thirdly, there is a great deal of barbed wire on the seafront and on the golf course which ought to be removed by the military authorities who put it there. Fourthly, there are hundreds of concrete blocks along the seafront which ought to be removed. I draw the attention of the Minister to these four points so that something can be done to make Aberdeen available for the visitors its natural beauties deserve.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I hope that if I do not repeat the arguments which have already been advanced during the course of this Debate I shall not be thought to be excluding them. The unanimity with which the arguments have been put forward will, I hope, cause a certain impact to fall upon the Minister so that he may do something about the position. This is not a new matter, and I want to remind the Minister, in case he does not know—I do not think he was in Parliament at the time—that it started as long ago as the Debates on the catering regulations during the last Parliament. At that time the then Minister of Labour, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, expressed the view in no uncertain terms that after the war the highest possible priority must be given to the rehabilitation of holiday resorts in order to refresh and rejuvenate in mind and body the workers of this country who had been unable to get a proper holiday throughout the war years.
Those of us who represent holiday resorts expected that the Government

would do something about it, but they have done practically nothing at all during the whole of their period of office. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who has just entered the Chamber, and whom we welcome here, must forgive me for saying that. He has done one thing, of which I reminded him quite recently, and that was, at the taxpayers' expense, to have produced for distribution by hotels a leaflet which says in five large words "Please bring your own towel." If this is the best advertisement the Government can put out for the hotel trade and for the attraction of visitors to this country, I hope they will think again about it. The Government have done practically nothing whatever, except to tie up the trade and industry with additional regulations which mean still more expense and make it still harder for them to carry out their job.
I want also to impress upon the Minister that this is not solely a hotel and boarding house problem. If, in the centres of holiday resorts, we do not get the basic industries running successfully, everything else suffers—the shops, the local authority activities and, finally, the rates. It is significant that in my own personal case I am being pressed far harder to try to get something done in connection with the rehabilitation of the resort industry by the local authorities themselves, than by the individual associations of the industry, which are acting independently and on their own initiative.
May I also remind the hon. Gentleman of the economic advantages of this business? Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) mentioned, £25 million was spent in tourist traffic coming into this country, but before the war America alone, in her tourist traffic, spent up to £166 million. What are we doing to attract anything of that nature to this country? There is a tremendous invisible dollar asset to be created in that way, and I would emphasise that it is a far more economic form of dollar earning than a straightforward export, because there are no raw materials to be paid for; the dollars are earned from the over-spill from the home industry, which has to go on. There is no additional cost in the way of raw materials to be imported, because it is service rendered by the people of this community.
Finally, I would say a word about basic petrol. That is the crux of the whole situation at the present time, but in dealing with basic petrol in connection with holiday resorts I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the need of a ration for yachts just as much as for cars. This matter has been referred to before, and I will not go into additional detail, but I want to remind the hon. Gentleman that it is useless thinking that holiday resort areas can rely on trains. In my own area we have a service going to Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and those resorts can be served, up to a point, by train. But let me take the case of Selsey, which caters for 100,000 or more holiday makers coming down from the Midland areas. It is eight miles from a railway station. It is impossible, for practical reasons, to have an adequate bus service, and the only solution of the problem is for people to do as they always have done since the resort developed, and that is to go there in their own motor cars.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): I would like to join with other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I hope that I shall be able to show to him that, unlike the previous Government, which he said did little or nothing, this Government has done a lot for the holiday resorts. I think he is a little unjust when he talks about his constituency merely being able to touch up with a little paint here and there. The constituency he represents was particularly knocked about during the war, and I do not think the people of this country realise the great extent to which his constituency has been rehabilitated and redecorated. I join with him in saying that this is something of which, rightly, one ought to be proud.
It was also suggested that we ought to give particular attention to the smaller hotels, and that the larger hotels can look after themselves. I do not share that view. I think all hotels—large or small, riverside, town or country hotels—require equal treatment, and it is the policy of the Government to give them all what help we can. The hon. Member said I might play with figures which would show the

resorts had not been hit as much as suggested. I can only say that I usually take the Press reports as reliable, and I believe they are very good evidence, so that I do not think a further question he put to me about the moratorium, arises. The moratorium during the war was necessary. People had gone out of the holiday towns, and the whole life of the resort was stopped, except for the essential workers and those who remained to carry on defence work. There was, indeed, a case for consideration, and that was given, but I cannot hold out any hope in the way that hon. Members have suggested.
I do not think I can go any further into the suggestion that American hotels should compete, because last week there were Questions and answers on the subject in this House, and I hope, in view of the time, that Members will be satisfied. In connection with basic petrol, I think hon. Members will appreciate this is a matter for the Minister of Fuel and Power. He has said already that he will make a statement later on, and I cannot anticipate that. Although basic petrol is important—and I accept that—both for motor boats and cars, I cannot say more on this at the moment. I accept its importance, which I am sure is shared by my colleague, and he will give the matter the fullest consideration in the light of that knowledge.

Mr. Spearman: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman cannot give a reassurance about the petrol ration, will he promise that he will speak to the Minister of Transport and impress upon him the need for better railway services?

Mr. Bottomley: There is little need to impress that upon the Minister, because he himself has made a statement in which he said that extra coal was going to be allocated. When I took up with him specifically the question whether we would have great difficulties in the way of vehicles and so forth, he said we might have some trouble, but we always had had trouble before the war in the great rush to holiday resorts. It is inevitable that there should be some dislocation, but he did further say that there would be additional trains to those in the timetable to make sure that that kind of rush could be met.
Reference was made to the staggering of holidays, and I agree with hon. Members that this is desirable. No doubt, Members are aware that there is a committee of the Ministry of Labour, composed of official and non-official bodies, which considers this matter. There are great difficulties to be overcome—difficulties primarily in connection with education, I agree. Progress has been made, however, because it is now possible for parents to take their children away from school for two weeks during term for the purposes of holidays. There is also the difficulty attached to the prejudice against holiday-making at certain times of the year. That, I suppose, is connected with the weather, because people do not want to go away in weather which is unsuitable for holidays. However, I share the view of hon. Members that it would be a good thing to have more staggering of holidays.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the main difficulty in getting staggered holidays, which he seems to want, is that school holidays have not been staggered? The concession he has just mentioned does not begin to cater for the problem. Is he not further aware that the Minister of Education has written to local education authorities asking them to arrange for the staggering of school holidays, but that he has had no response and has done nothing about it since?

Mr. Bottomley: It is not true to say that the Minister of Education has done nothing about it. There are all kinds of difficulties, some of which I have already mentioned. Most people take their children on the fortnight's holiday to which they are entitled; so I think this difficulty has been overcome in the case of the masses of the people, who cannot get more than two weeks' holiday.
The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) asked about the price of food, and suggested that a slight increase might effect a mopping up of surplus money. It is not quite that, is it? All that is achieved by increasing the prices of meals is a transfer of cash from one pocket to another, giving the recipient that spending power of which the other person has been deprived. If we can encourage more to be spent in the hotels, well and good. I think the facilities already exist. Those

who have surplus money to spend can pay the cover charge for the high class restaurant or hotel, and can get as much drink as they desire, which is a way in which they can use their surplus cash.

Sir I. Fraser: It is a matter of elementary economics. If 6s. is paid for a meal which at present costs 5s., surely that is mopping up some part of the money which is now chasing too few goods?

Mr. Bottomley: I think I did say that this merely transfers it from one purchasing agency to another. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Maclean) made a point of which I take due note, namely, that in some countries the tourist industry is nationalised, and is good in consequence. I am glad to have from the Opposition benches a tribute to nationalised industry.

Mr. Maclean: I said that the Governments in those countries give their tourist industries every possible advantage, and that, therefore, they have an unfair advantage over our tourist industry, which is interfered with and not supported by the Government. That argument cuts both ways.

Mr. Bottomley: I shall show that we give every assistance—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about basic petrol?"]—considering the economic difficulties we have to face. The fact that we have debated this industry so often in the House is an indication of the attention that is constantly given to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only on the Adjournment."] Yes, that is quite true, on the Adjournment Motion. The question has been raised by hon. Members on behalf of seaside resorts. I think that at times perhaps this industry gets more than its fair share of spokesmen, compared with other industries throughout the country. Other industries have their limitations—and necessarily so—because our economic circumstances are such that we have very limited supplies, although we give the maximum assistance, and I shall show that the tourist industry does get the maximum help.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: The hotel industry is the third or fourth largest in the country.

Mr. Bottomley: I am fully aware of that, and I shall show that we give it all the consideration worthy of a great


industry. We give it that consideration for two particular reasons. The tourist industry enables people from different countries to mix and to get to know each other, as well as bringing to this country very valuable currency. The home holidays aspect is also important, and I accept what was said in that respect. We want to make sure that our people get nice holidays, in order that they may keep healthy and fit to carry on their daily tasks. Recognising both those points, the Government have done everything possible to assist.
We have made special concessions to tourists. Recently, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement dealing fully with this matter, so perhaps I may be forgiven if I do not now repeat all that we have done. As an illustration of the help we are giving, I take the problem of de-requisitioning, which has been mentioned. Since 1945 we have de-requisitioned 94 per cent. of the hotels that were requisitioned for war purposes. I think that this is a very good thing. But we are not satisfied; we want to de-requisition the other 6 per cent., and as opportunities enable us so to do, that will be done. At the same time, the hon. Member for South Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) appeals to me not to be too anxious to do this, because it would mean taking the civil servants from his constituency.

Mr. Robinson: That does rather misrepresent what I said.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry if I have misrepresented the hon. Member; I had no intention of doing so. That is the conclusion I drew; but if it is not correct I will not press it.

Mr. Robinson: On a point of Order. Have I no redress? The Minister has misrepresented what I said. All I said was that Government Departments had moved away. I never said that which the hon. Member attributed to me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member has now made clear to the House what he did say.

Mr. Bottomley: I accept what the hon. Member says. The Government have done everything possible to make sure that hotels which have been de-requisitioned

are fit and suitable for housing holidaymakers. We have re-equipped the hotels. Indeed, I obtained some rather interesting figures. In the past two years we have given such special consideration to the hotel industry, in competition with other home needs that it has managed to secure 775,000 sheets; 150,000 items of furniture; 550,000 square yards of furnishing fabrics, and 250,000 towels. At the present moment the British Tourist and Holidays Board are issuing a circular, or giving notice to the hotel industry, whereby further claims can be made for these goods. I hope hon. Members will take that as an indication—apart from other means of publicity—that we are still anxious to give extra supplies to those hotels, particularly to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), who appeared to invite Mr. Speaker to sleep in a bed with no sheets. Certainly, that hotel will get sheets if the hon. Member advises it to apply in time.
The resumption of foreign travel has been necessary, because we particularly want to attract visitors from the dollar area. In that connection we hold out great hopes. We were told by those connected with the hotel industry that everything was dark; that we could not have any success. As we know, Last year we had over 300,000 visitors, a quarter of whom came from dollar countries, which added over £5 million worth of very valuable hard currency to our earnings, and assisted us in our endeavours to pay our way. I think that a rather gloomy picture has been painted of our lack of understanding and of the dull and depressing situation through which the industry has passed. That will be shown to be wrong. Those connected with the industry will, by their enterprise, with all the advice, assistance and help which the Government give, again be able to cater for people who come to this country, and will, as a result, show what British hospitality is, despite what has been said by people who have gone overseas from this country.
As has been pointed out, there are people who go abroad and say that this country is in such a state that visitors ought not to come. I give the lie to that. We want them to come, although we cannot give them the usual standard of hospitality, in view of the resources at our disposal; but we can give them our warm friendship, and I hope that


they will come and enjoy their stay. As I have shown in the time allotted to me, the Government have done everything possible to help this most deserving industry, and I think that we can be pleased with what we have done. I give an assurance of all possible help for the future.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Most unsatisfactory.

CIVIL SERVICE (COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS)

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I have no doubt that a number of hon. Members will wish to speak on the subject of the employment of Communists and Fascists in the Civil Service and therefore I shall make my remarks brief. My hon. Friends and I have sought to raise this subject because it is of great importance. It raises many questions of vital principle and it cannot be passed over in silence. The Prime Minister indicated on Monday that he would have a further statement or an elaboration of his original statement to make to us. We only regret now that the time allotted to us is so short.
I would like to start by saying that I fully agree that a Minister has the right to dismiss a civil servant holding a confidential position if, upon secret information, the Minister believes that that man is disloyal and insecure. I would go further. I would say that the Minister had a duty to do so. I do not think that the Prime Minister has always thought like that. He certainly did not think so at the time of the dismissals in the Royal Dockyards. I certainly did think so and I think so now, and I do not think anyone can say that that attitude is wrong. I agree, too, that the danger of a Communist fifth column in this country is very great, and it is right to include in that fifth column the so-called fellow-travellers. The 40,000 inscribed members of the Communist Party are really that portion of the iceberg which shows above the water. The most dangerous part is the other seven-eighths which is underneath and therefore is not so easily seen.
I do not think that anyone who read the Canadian spy trial, or indeed has read Stalin's work on Leninism or has read much Marx, can doubt, as the Prime

Minister's statement says, that such people are bound to hold loyalties which are inimical to the State. More simply put, they are traitors. I fully agree with both those propositions. Having said that, and having admitted that the measures proposed to be taken are likely to be merciful, sensible and light, the fact that we are being forced now, in this country, to put political tests upon employment in the Civil Service makes me grieve for the past and forebode the future. The problem is one of appalling difficulty. In the case of both Fascists and Communists we have people who say: "While you are the masters we will claim all the democratic rights of free speech, because on your principles you must grant them. When we are masters we will deny those rights to you because it will be right to deny them on our principles." That is a very difficult situation to deal with. The danger that I foresee is that unless the Government carry the whole country with them we may get the present subversive movement actually increased, and more of it going underground and becoming more dangerous than before.
There are several suggestions I would like to put to the Government on this matter. The first suggestion is that if people are to understand the dangers that we face in this country they must have full information. No steps were taken by the Government to publicise in this country the Canadian spy trial; rather the reverse. It is some time since that trial took place. We now get this change of policy in this country, not preceded by any further information about what has happened since that trial and what is going on now in this country. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government, either by speech now, or perhaps better still by a full statement in a White Paper, to set forth what methods have been pursued by Communists in the various countries and the methods that are being pursued here, so that we can see precisely the dangers and difficulties with which the Government are faced. That is the first and very reasonable thing to ask.
The second suggestion is this: It is immensely important not only to act with moderation and good sense but so that everybody shall know we have so acted. There are many devoted people I have


no doubt in the security Services, but I have noticed what sometimes happens when one is trying to carry out a purge. Some isolated incident in a man's past is seized hold of, and because of that incident he is regarded as being something quite other than he really is. Perhaps I could put an ad hominem argument on this matter. When the Prime Minister was speaking the other day the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) asked him how he would distinguish Socialist sheep from Communist goats. The Prime Minister, whom we all respect as one of the most loyal of men, may remember the occasion when he was photographed giving the Communist salute at an International parade.

Mr. Gallacher: When the hon. Member has finished speaking will he be good enough to go to St. Stephen's Hall, where he will see Charles James Fox giving the same salute. He was a loyal Englishman.

Mr. Birch: It matters on what occasion the salute was given. Anyway, what I have said is a fact. Suppose we imagine the Prime Minister in a less exalted station than he now holds. Suppose he was a junior civil servant occupying a position of trust. Suppose, as is very likely, a security officer found this photograph. Is it not probable that the Prime Minister would be classed among the goats. We know as a matter of fact that would be the wrong animal, but this illustrates a danger with which we have to contend.
My suggestion here is that it should be possible to issue a clear directive on this matter to Ministries indicating the scope and the type of thing which we are combating. If the Government know what they are trying to do, it should be perfectly possible to let the country know exactly what general measures the Government are going to use in carrying it out and the type of person who will be hit by it. What can be clearly thought can be clearly expressed.

Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Member also say how he will face this individual danger, if I give him a picture showing the Duke of Windsor giving the Fascist salute in Italy, when getting off a British battleship?

Mr. Birch: I ask the Prime Minister for this clear directive to be given.
The next point is that of being fair and of appearing to be fair, where the rights of individuals are concerned. I do not want to enlarge upon this point because the right hon. Gentleman said he would satisfy the House on this matter. I see all the difficulties but I see several ways in which the position could be met. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he is going to do, so that we can see whether it is right and good or not.
That is all I have to say. I recognise the danger and I recognise the difficulties. I also recognise the great danger of producing the opposite effect to what we intend, as we have done over de-nazification in Germany. I believe that those dangers can be mitigated, first by the fullest information about the dangers we face, and secondly by the fullest possible information about what the Government intend to do and the way they intend to do it.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am delighted that we have even this small opportunity of discussing one of the most vital issues in relation to the growth of democracy in Britain at the present moment. However one tries to balance the statement, one cannot get away from this fact—and here I quote a gallant fighter for freedom and democracy whom we used to call Josh Wedgwood in North Staffordshire, who fought in this country for freedom for those who had suffered under Fascism, for Jews and others who had suffered abroad. He said:
Decisions secretly arrived at"—
I underline "secretly"—
threatening a man with expulsion or ruin are not the stuff democracy is made of.
Consequently I find it my bounden duty to protest against this proposal.
I would remind the Prime Minister that on 26th January, 1937, on the occasion of the famous Debate on the five men who had been victimised in the Royal dockyard at Devonport, he and others who are now on the Front Bench, opposed wholeheartedly the Government of the day on this issue of secret trials and the activities of MI5 when dealing with dockyard trials. The Prime Minister said:
In the main, it is that defence which has been put up through the ages by every tyrant


and dictator, namely, necessity. The security of the State demands the denial of justice to these men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1937; Vol. 319, c 889–890.]
I contend that we are having the same excuse on this issue as we had at the time of the dockyard trials in 1937, and I beg my colleagues on this side of the House wholeheartedly to support me on this issue, even if ultimately we have to demand an entire day for Debate on this subject. On that same day, a grand fighter for democracy—we are all delighted to know that he has come out of hospital— Mr. Arthur Greenwood—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Harold Davies: I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)—moved this Resolution:
'That this House, jealous of the rights and liberties of the subject, regrets the action of the Government in dismissing summarily five workmen from their employment in the Royal dockyard without informing them of what offence they were accused or'"—
This is the important piece—
…affording them any opportunity of making any defence; believes that such action is contrary to the principles of British justice and detrimental of the best interests of the national service …'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January?, 1937; Vol. 319, C. 785.]
That is the position as we have it today.
I am not prepared to give any Minister this power. I am not prepared to give the Prime Minister or any Minister in this or any other land the power which is asked for in the statement made by the Prime Minister some days ago. The Committee on Ministers' Powers, which reported in 1932 on this same subject, said:
It is contrary to the first principles of freedom and justice that in any civil or criminal proceedings a man should be condemned before he is heard.
What opportunity will people have under this of being heard? On this I agree wholeheartedly with what was said by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). The Committee also said:
Although natural justice does not fall within those definite and well-recognised rules of law which English Courts of Justice enforce, we think that it is beyond doubt that there are certain canons of judicial conduct to which any persons who have to give judicial or quasi-judicial decisions ought to conform. The principles on which they rest are implicit in the rule of law.

Lastly:
No party ought to be condemned unheard and if his right to be heard is to be a reality he must know in good time the case which he has to meet.
At the same time the present Chancellor of the Exchequer made an excellent case for the defence of those five men. I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield where they stand today on exactly the same issue. The issue is no different. We are being driven hysterically to a belief that the nation is in trouble from fellow-traveller Fascists and fellow-traveller Communists. I wish emphasis was put in this House on the Fascists as much as it is on the Communists at the present moment.
Democracy is not government by counting heads but government by debating and explaining. Reason must be given for everything and I am not prepared to allow some organisation like M.I.5 or some organisation attached to secret police or Scotland Yard to be able to place a stigma on a man or woman because some gossipers said "We have seen you with Billy Gallacher—Piratin or somebody like that."—[HON. MEMBERS: Order.]— I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I beg my party to realise that unnatural power corrupts both the heart and the understanding, and I will stand and fight to the last against this, because it is a demand from my party to give to other Ministers unnatural power which would corrupt this party and ultimately destroy it. I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House not to be driven hysterically into this witch-hunting campaign but to believe that Britain has something which she can show to the world and that she believes in her own democratic system. If we want to answer Fascism and Communism, let us stand up like men and make the British system work.

2.18 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I agree with both hon. Members who have preceded me in regretting that we have so short a time in which to Debate this very important subject. Few would deny the right of this or any other Government to take adequate steps to ensure the security of the State. Indeed, the


Government would be failing in their duty if they did not do so. Once the adherence of any individual to a political creed is such that it transcends all loyalty to his own country, if that individual has access to confidential documents, clearly action must be taken and, what is more, it must be taken while there is still time.
The writing on the wall has been clear for all to see. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we have had the example of the Canadian spy trial. During the last two years or 18 months we have also watched the methods by which democracy has been extinguished in the countries of South Eastern Europe one after the other. Those examples have provided us with warnings which could not possibly be ignored. At the same time the removal of a civil servant from his post because of his political views is, at any rate in peacetime a new feature in this country, and one which raises issues of considerable constitutional importance. The Prime Minister has promised to make a full statement in answer to the Debate today, and I hope he will do so. I hope he will also give us information on a number of points of considerable substance.
In the first place I would like to know what sort of directive is issued from him to the Government Departments in respect of the implementation of the statement he made the other day. Secondly, down to what level in the Civil Service are inquiries being instituted into the political associations with the Communist party of any suspect individual? Is it to be only in the Departments directly concerned with some aspect of security, or will it extend over a much wider field? Thirdly, we are particularly interested to hear from him what safeguards exist in order to avoid victimisation, because safeguards there must be in that direction. Fourthly, what facilities are given to any suspected individual to make any statement in his own defence? It is not sufficient that effective action should be taken, it is not sufficient that justice should be done, it is no less important that justice should seem to be done, so I hope we shall have some information on these points.
I think the House will agree with me that it is clearly desirable to avoid a kind of general witch-hunt in which anybody

who had ever had any association with the Communist party in the past, however temporary, becomes automatically suspect. If I understand the position correctly from the right hon. Gentleman's previous statement, it is the Minister in charge of the Department who is responsible ultimately for making effective security arrangements in that Department. That may well involve embarrassment in certain quarters. Of course it was the party opposite which told everybody at the Election that only a Socialist Britain could really get on to friendly terms with the Communists. Then there were those who, in the past, felt tempted to embrace the hammer and sickle, who even put one arm into a shirt coloured red and a second arm into another shirt coloured black, and now—as far as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food is concerned have discarded both garments and sit respectably attired on the Treasury Bench in a Government which, we are told, is the only effective alternative to dictatorship.

Mr. John Paton: Mr. John Paton (Norwich) rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. J. Paton: Will the hon. Member permit me to interrupt? He has made a charge against the Minister of Food, which has been made in this House before, and I want to say here and now that that charge is completely and absolutely without a shred of truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, the Minister of Food has never at any time in the whole course of his life had anything whatever to do with Fascism.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I have no doubt that the Prime Minister, when he comes to reply, if he thinks fit to do so—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman insisting on pursuing a witch-hunt which he himself deplored?

Mr. Mott-Radelyffe: If the hon. Member will look at HANSARD tomorrow he will find that I said that there were those who were tempted to embrace the hammer and sickle—

Mr. Paton: The hon. Member ought to withdraw.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I was under the impression that for one reason or another the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food certainly felt tempted—if I may use that phrase—

Mr. Paton: No, it is untrue.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Again, there are others who sit on that side of the House who owe their seats in this House to the support of Transport House at the General Election, to receipt of the Socialist ticket but who, since their election to this House in 1945, have spoken and acted in a manner which is curiously parallel with the general line of propaganda from Radio Moscow. Will these hon. Gentlemen support the Government in the action they are now taking against those who more openly admit adherence to the Communist creed? And if they support the Government in that direction, is their support welcome or distasteful to the Government? The trouble really is that for a great many people in this country the dividing line between Socialism and Communism is not at all clear. The logical conclusion of Socialism is the transfer to the State of all means of production, all means of finance and all means of exchange. That is also the objective of Communism.

Mr. Scollan: That is Socialism.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: That is precisely the conclusion of Communism as well and hitherto the only real difference has been the use by the latter of unconstitutional and violent means to achieve the same ends. Incidentally, nowhere is the dividing line between Communism and Socialism less clear than it is on the Continent of Europe. We all know that the coup in Czechoslovakia was facilitated by collaboration by a section of the Czech Socialist Party with the Communists; we know in other countries, now swallowed by the Communists, that the Socialists were in many instances the willing tools of the Communists in the early stages of infiltration. The public are greatly disturbed by these events, and we ask the Prime Minister, when he winds up the Debate, to assure us in the first place that adequate steps are being taken to ensure the security of the State and, secondly, that those steps will be in accordance with the principles of British justice. Thirdly, we hope he will make a clearer

statement than he has made hitherto in relation to the dividing line between the respective long-term objectives of Socialism and Communism, and lastly, that such a statement will be implemented not merely by words, but by deeds as well.

2.28 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Like other hon. Members, I am sorry that there is not a full day for this Debate, but I want to take the opportunity of nailing a couple of lies and to issue a warning to the people of this country. Of course, we understand that, instigated by the multimillionaires of America—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who feed you?"]—there is a slander campaign against the Communists in this country, and everyone indulging in it pours out his venom against the Communists. In connection with this, it may be permissible and appropriate to quote from the Scripture. Paul the Apostle—hon. Gentlemen on the other side will have heard of him—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Not on the hon. Member's side.

Mr. Gallacher: —speaking to the Corinthians, said:
…we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
What he said to the Corinthians about the early Christians could have been said about the early pioneers of Labour in connection with the Tories and Liberals in this country, and the Prime Minister knows that. It is now a combination of Tories and Tory-dominated Labour leaders who are using the same low, vile slanders against the Communists.
This question of the Communists cannot be dissociated from the Economic Survey. Read paragraph 285. We are told that unless we get dollar aid, this country goes down. We are told that Britain is an economic cripple, and that unless it gets dollar crutches it is unable to stand on its own feet. I say it is a lie. There is not a word of truth in it. The people of this country have been through hardships of every kind, generation after generation. The workers of this country are not cripples, but are strong and resolute, and will show it in the years to come. But, so long as we are dependent on America, we cannot possibly get out of the crisis. Is it possible to balance our payments


while we are dependent on America? It is utterly impossible. The only alternative to an ad verse balance is to exchange goods with the Dominions, with countries of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union.
I make this firm declaration, and it will be made before the workers in every part of the country; the Communist Party fights for the complete independence and economic prosperity of this country, while the Tories and Labour leaders are selling this country to the big dollar boys of America.

Major Tufton Beamish: Could I ask the hon. Member—

Mr. Gallacher: No. We have faith in the people of this country, not in dollars.

Major Beamish: Did the hon. Gentleman vote for the Loan?

Mr. Gallacher: There is a suggestion that not only are we disloyal, but that we take orders from another country. This is always brought up. There is not a word of truth in it. [Laughter.]

Major Beamish: The hon. Member voted for the Loan—why?

Mr. Harold Davies: For goodness' sake be quiet.

Mr. Gallacher: Of course, those who make the charge never attempt to prove it. It is an axiom of law in this country that if a charge is made against anyone, the one who makes the charge has the responsibility for providing evidence to prove it. The Leader of the House time and time again at conferences made charges against the Communist Party, such as taking money and orders from abroad. When he was at the Home Office he had everything at his disposal. He could open letters, and knew what was going on. When he was at the Home Office the present Secretary of State for War repeatedly challenged him, asking, "Can you produce an iota of evidence to substantiate what you have been saying in the past?", but not an iota was produced.
I have to prove a negative, and perhaps hon. Members will bear with me if I take a peculiar, but, I think, a very effective way of proving the negative. The Bolshevik Revolution took place in November, 1917. Here is the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons for

1916, Dr. Addison speaking. He says that the Clyde Workers Committee, of which I was Chairman, was pursuing
…a policy of holding up the production of the most important munitions of war in the Clyde district, with the object, I am informed, of compelling the Government to repeal the Military Service Act…

Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask if it has been considered whether these men are not guilty of assisting the King's enemies, and thereby guilty of high treason?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, the whole matter is being considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1916; Vol. 81, c. 564–6.]
Will the Prime Minister tell me who I was taking orders from then? —From no one. But from whom was I getting advice and encouragement? From the Leader of the House. Here is something of the kind he was writing to encourage me, and other young lads:
These are trying times for those of us who are capable of resisting the militarists chloroform. We must keep ourselves free from all this slaughter of workers by workers. We must not be ashamed to avow our innermost conviction. We must preserve our souls. Our internationalism must remain intact and untarnished.
I supported that in 1915, and I support it today. What about the right hon. Gentleman? Not only was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House supporting that then, but he, Snowden, MacDonald and the anti-war Socialists here in London sent their dear friend the late Bruce Glasier up to Glasgow to meet the Clyde Workers Committee. J. M. Messer was there, and Arthur McManus and Tom Clark. They are gone. But the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was there, and I was there. Bruce Glasier begged us in their names, literally with tears in his eyes, to make a strike against conscription and save the young lads from being drawn into the Army. Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes. Any assertion that I was personally associated with that particular effort is utterly untrue. I was not high enough up in the councils of the Labour and Socialist Movement at that time to be so involved. I had nothing whatever to do with the Clyde Workers Committee. I was against the first world war, bitterly against it, and stood against it, and I see no reason still for differing in my opinion about it.

Mr. Gallacher: But the right hon. Gentleman was the leader of the London group in opposition to the war. I know he was the leader of the London group, and I know for whom Bruce Glasier spoke, for he came up and told us who it was, lie represented—

Mr. Percy Wells: The I.L.P.

Mr. Gallacher: No, not the I.L.P.—those who were against the war and conscientious objectors. We made a fight against conscription; the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs was deported, and I was put into gaol. I there met the Secretary of State for Scotland who, when he was of military age, had refused to give any service for his country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear. It is his country now, but then it was not his country, and so he refused to give military service. Hundreds of other lads went to gaol incited by the writings of the right hon. Gentleman, and encouraged by the writings of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman himself dodged the Army and then dodged the gaol by taking a job as a market gardener. What a record.

Mr. Nally: On a point of Order. Could I have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker? A charge has been made—in my view a serious charge—namely, that a right hon. Member of this House dodged—that was the word—military service when it was his obligation to accept it, and, having dodged gaol as a consequence of his act, took up some other service. Is that the kind of charge which can properly be made in this House?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that, while it may not be in the best of taste, it is not out of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not think there is much good taste in connection with a letter which I got this morning. A young girl in a job was seen reading the "Daily Worker." Someone reported it. Those at the head of the business called her in and asked her if she was a member of the Communist Party. When she at once said "Yes," she was sacked on the spot. I am not concerned with good taste, but I am concerned very much with good working-class politics. Everything I have said is true.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary was a delegate with me at the Leeds Conference in 1917 for the setting up of workers and soldiers councils in this country. Now he is in a state of nervous jitters because of the committees of action in Czechoslovakia. I give a warning to the Members of this House, to the miners and to the other people of the country: This is not a simple thing, the removal of a few Communists here and there. When the Communists were attacked in 1925 and the 12 Communist leaders were sent to goal, that was part of the preparations for the attack on the miners which followed at the beginning of the following year, and the miners went down after terrible sufferings. It is not without significance that we have a deplorable Economic Survey, an attack upon the Communists, and at the conference yesterday at the Central Hall, Mr. Sam Watson saying he would support, if necessary, a reduction of miners' wages.
I ask the Prime Minister, "Is this attack on the Communists, backed by a State department, connected with a demand from Marshall that wages in this country must come down?" Mr. Watson does not get that idea out of the air. He is a member of the executive of the Miners' Union and of the Labour Party, and he is also closely associated with the Minister of Fuel and Power. Whenever he comes to London he has consultations with Marshall's labour official at the American Embassy, Mr. Sam Berger. What advice does he get? What instructions do they give him? Do the miners ever get to know what takes place between him and the labour official of Marshall at the American Embassy?

Mr. Michael Foot: They elected Sam Watson.

Mr. Gallacher: They elected Sam Watson, but they often elect people who do not always represent their best interests. They elected Ramsay MacDonald, and when we said that Ramsay MacDonald was pursuing a policy which meant betrayal of the working class, the Leader of the House was white-washing MacDonald and presenting him as the greatest leader that this country had ever known. There is a warning which I must give to the people. This attack on the Communists cannot be disassociated from those who talk of war. The other day the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Jean Mann)


asked the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who was going to make atomic and bacteriological war on this country. She made a very good answer, to which this can be added: Every day in the Press of America there is talk of making an attack on Russia before the Russians can recover from the wounds of the last war. Is that correct? I ask the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman)—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking a question of me and, of course, I cannot say whether it was correct or not.

Mr. Gallacher: I said the hon, Member for East Coventry. Is it correct that American statesmen are continually suggesting that war should be made against Russia before Russia has recovered from the wounds of the last war? That is a foul, vicious and cowardly thought. It is typical of gangsterism, and big multimillionaires in America are typical gangsters. I ask the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House—the man who wanted to keep his conscience clean and his internationalism intact—are they now lined up with the Du Ponts, the Rockefellers, the Morgans and the Vandenbergs and all that follow them over here, preparing, as they are preparing, for an attack upon the working-class of Eastern Europe and the working-class of the Soviet Union? America is talking about bacteriological warfare—[An HON. MEMBER: "Russia is talking."] There has been never a mention anywhere of Russia making war on us or on any other country.
We are told that Russia is infiltrating. I was speaking at Manchester, with the editor of the "Daily Worker," on Sunday night. One hundred and two members of the audience filled in forms and joined the Communist Party. That shows how they feel about it. I ask the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or any of the hon. Members on the other side, when too odd people join the Communist Party, if that is Stalin infiltrating into this country? When we put before people a real working-class policy, and show how this country can rise to its own feet without dollar aid, and how, if it gets rid of the Tories and the capitalist class the people can go forward in progress and prosperity—when people believe and

accept that, is that Stalin infiltrating into this country?
America wants to make war against the Soviet Union and to use Britain as a forward base. Is that correct? We have had discussions in this House on the Air, the Army and the Navy Estimates, and we cannot disassociate them from attacks on the Communist Party. According to the military and naval experts in this House, we have to have dispersal; our war potential has to go to Canada or Australia, and the Government and the Royal Family to Ottawa, while the people are left to perish. By the time such a war finished, this country would be a mass of radio-active mud. Will the hon. Member for East Coventry or any of the others go to his constituents and say, "We are prepared to hand over Britain as a forward base for the American monopoly capitalists to attack Europe and Russia? The Communists fight against that, therefore, we must attack the Communists"?
They dare not tell the truth, so they talk about democracy. If they want to talk about democracy, let them talk to Marshall and his crowd. If Marshall wants to give relief, let him give it to the millions of Negroes and poor whites in America who have a lower standard of life than we have; if they want to talk about freedom let them talk about freedom for the millions in America who are not allowed to vote. Do not talk to me about democracy.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, we have insufficient time for this Debate. May I ask your advice for other hon. Members who wish to make a speech in this Debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that time is limited. I have been trying to cut speeches as short as possible. We have five minutes left now before the right hon. Gentleman is due to rise in his place.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: A gross breach of privilege.

Mr. Piratin: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. Member opposite who represents one of the universities was heard to say that it is a gross breach of privilege. May I draw attention to the fact that it was the hon. Member opposite, and his colleagues, who had two days to debate the university


vote, while my hon. Friend on this side of the House cannot be given half an hour to debate—

Mr. Speaker: Is that intended to be a reflection on me for not allowing more time on this Debate? If so, that is a most improper remark.

Mr. Piratin: Not on you, Sir.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, in view of the fact that there are many points of view to be expressed in this Debate—I in particular wish to express a view from the public services—and the length of time taken up by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in his historical references and diversions, it is possible to give us a little more time to debate this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite impossible. After all, that would be taking away time from hon. Members who have been waiting here and have had the time allotted to them. It is perfectly true that I knew that an hour and a half was a short time for this Debate. Originally, I had put it down for the last hour and a half, so that there could be no question arising. But then I was asked to put it on earlier. Therefore 3.3o is the limit, and I am afraid must remain the limit.

Mr. Bowles: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As I happen to be one of the Members who have the Adjournment, I am prepared to give up my half hour for the prolongation of this Debate.

Mr. Speaker: If so, then this Debate will end at 4 o'clock.

Mr. Benn Levy: Further to that point of Order. Would not the wish of the House be met if the Leader of the House would take this opportunity to say that he would be prepared to reconsider his decision and give proper time for a Debate on this most important constitutional issue after Easter?

Mr. Gallacher: I would only say that, if it had not been for these interruptions, I would have finished by now. I must remark that my historical references are very important, although the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will not understand them. They are to show that I have remained true to principle

all the time. That is a strange idea, no doubt, to the hon. Member for Rugby, and he would not appreciate it.
I wish to warn the Members of this House, the workers of this country and the people of the country as a whole. We must break the American fetters before it is too late. We must build up this country and make it strong, resolute and independent, standing on its own feet, and not as an economic cripple. That can be done, but it can only be done—and I commend this to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House; it was inherent in their election campaign—not by attacking the Communists, but by attacking the Tories and the capitalist and the landlord classes. It can only be done by pursuing a Socialist policy, by building up a planned economy, based on that Socialist policy, which will give the people of this country peace and economic progress.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am afraid that many of the things I would like to have said today have become impossible to say, because, for the last half hour we have discussed everything but the issue which is before the House and there will not be time. It would be very interesting to go into the biographies of members of the Labour Party and the trade unions. It would be very interesting to pursue all the historical references made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). But however interesting it might be, it is not the subject we want to debate today. We want to debate today the statement made last Monday by the Prime Minister.
I heard that statement, as probably did many other hon. Members, with a mixture of profound sorrow and deep relief—sorrow that at this stage of English politics we have to introduce any kind of political discrimination in respect of employment in the public service, but relief because of the evidence that the Government were not going to allow the undermining and the destruction of democracy from within which we have witnessed in State after State in Eastern Europe during these last two years. I conclude that the Government are right in this matter. It is not they who distinguish against the Communists and Fascists. It is the Communists and Fasciscts who differentiate themselves from


the rest of organised society by repudiating the very basis upon which that society rests.
I say that the Communist objective, defined in the Communist Manifesto, which is the Communist Bible, is "the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." The last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto shows that that is the declared Communist aim. Communist method consists in the penetration and infiltration into the existing organs of society, with a view to the overthrow of that society. And thirdly, Communist morality. Marx proclaimed—and anybody who feels the temptation to become a Communist should read Marx—that no morality can be accepted by any Communist unless it proceeds from a class basis. No morality is binding upon a Communist which does not proceed from a class basis, says Marx. I say the Communist objective, the Communist method, and the Communist morality make them dangerous to any existing society, and that society is entitled to take measures for its own defence.
May I add one word for the benefit of the hon. Members opposite. If they will look at this week's "Tribune," of which the distinguished editor is sitting opposite, they will find these words written by Mr. Gedge from Prague, and I commend them to every hon. Member of this House:
No democratic Socialist who saw what happened here"—
and Mr. Gedge was there—

Mr. Platts-Mills: He was not.

Mr. Brown: No democratic Socialist who saw what happened here could characterise the decision to clear Communists out of confederated State employment as anything but an absolutely essential though unpleasant precaution.
For that reason I was relieved at the statement of the Prime Minister, but I feel the apprehension and the fear that every Englishman feels of even the possibility of injustice being done in this connection. That. I think, is the view of people of this country. There are possibilities here—and it is to this point particularly that I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—there are possibilities of spies and informers. There

are possibilities of tale bearing and backchat and personal spite. There are possibilities of injustices, and we want all the guarantees we can get against those things.
Here I wish to say a thing with which not everyone will agree, especially the hon. Member for West Fife, because I am going to quote Trotsky. The raw material upon which the judgment will take place on this case will presumably be material gathered by the security services. The facts and information will presumably be gathered by the Security Service—M.I.5 or whatever it is called. Now, Trotsky once observed that the police mind, although extremely accurate, was often highly stupid. In matters of this kind it is not only the facts that must be looked at: it is the assessment of the facts against a background of political judgment, and against the capacity to estimate the character of the man with whom one is dealing. At one end of the scale we will get a man who, righteously indignant at some social wrong, gets up and, as the Americans say, "shoots his mouth off" about it, but who has no more intention of betraying his country or being disloyal to his employer, the State, than you or I or anyone else. But at the other end, we get the man who is prepared to sell State secrets to a foreign Power, who is prepared to pass copies of documents from Government offices to No. 16, King Street. I have in my hand a letter from a civil servant whom I have known since my youth. He writes to me because I am an old friend, and says:
I was shocked to hear during the war of a lady temporarily in the Service who said to a colleague whom she thought was safe, 'I always take an extra carbon of anything that might interest the party.'
I submit that at a time when things are critical, to say the least of it, we cannot have people wandering about taking carbon copies of confidential information and passing it on to the headquarters of any political party whatever. Therefore, I say that the assessment of the facts is even more important sometimes than the facts themselves.
Let us take another example. There are many organisations in England which experienced politicians know to be no more than Communist "front" organisations. There is the National Council for the Protection of Civil Liberties. The only liberty that that body ever seems to


me to defend is the liberty of Communists to take other people's liberty away. There are all kinds of organisations with high-sounding titles, to which many quite innocent people are inadvertently attracted and only learn what they really are at a later point in time. Therefore, I say that it is not only the bare facts produced by the military intelligence that we have to look at, but also the assessment of those facts against a broad political background, and with some reference to the character of the person who is being dealt with.
Now, I ask myself what is the appropriate machine for dealing with these cases. On this, Sir, I do not want to be dogmatic, because there are two or three ways of achieving an object which I think all of us would like to achieve. For example, we had at an earlier stage a Committee which functioned, I think on the whole, very well, called the Political Honours Committee. I want to suggest a committee interposed between the individual whose conduct is in question and the point of final decision. I do not want an appeal tribunal because, if we had one, its results would have to be final, and if they were final, then the Minister responsible to the House could shelter behind the appeal tribunal, and effective Parliamentary control of the Minister would disappear. I want an advisory committee, active after the reports have been received, but operating before the Minister reaches judgment, and giving to the Minister, not merely the facts produced by the intelligence, but an assessment of what those facts mean in the light of the known record, the known character, of the individual concerned. If that happens, I think that there is very much less chance of this thing going wrong than would otherwise be the case.
There are one or two other things I want to say. We must try to secure uniformity of judgment on this matter. It would be a great tragedy, in my view, if the standard applied in one Department to one category of civil servants was different from the standard applied in another Department to another category of civil servants. Therefore, I want to urge that steps should be taken to correlate the judgments as between one Department and another before steps are taken to transfer or dismiss anybody.
Another suggestion which the Prime Minister might like to consider is that it might be possible to have in each Department a committee of three or four "persons of standing." I use that phrase to convey the idea of highly responsible public servants whose judgment would be respected by their colleagues, and who would not be thought to have any interest whatever in doing anybody clown. It might be possible to comprise that committee from a panel nominated by the staff and official sides of the Whitley Council, which represents the Administration and the employees alike. However it is composed, the principle is more important—the principle of subjecting the facts to assessment before a decision is made.
The last thing I want to say is that I have had some contact with public servants in the last few days, and I would like to tell the House that, while I think that, within the accepted premises of democracy, it would not have been possible to get civil servants to agree to any kind of political discrimination at all, when these premises are rejected and we are dealing with new and largely alien-inspired influences in Britain, which openly proclaim that they intend to rend our society to pieces if they can, civil servants agree that then society is entitled to defend itself. While there is sorrow in the public service—deep sorrow, as my hon. colleague on the other side knows—that we have to do this kind of thing at all, there is also the firm determination that what happened in Czechoslovakia and other European countries shall not happen here because of the weakness and unwillingness of democracy to take the needful precautions.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the hon. Member suggest that he speaks for any of the members of his own union when he speaks in that fashion?

Mr. Brown: I think that shortly, if they have not done so already, the facts will demonstrate that I do speak for my union. I will not pursue that, because I would be committing the same error as the hon. Member before me, but I should be delighted to do so. Possibly, the newspapers will tell the hon. Gentleman in May that there is not a Communist left on the executive committee of my organisation. I say that, while the public service is sad about this, it recognises that


the Government is right in laying it down that we ought not to employ in important positions in the public service people upon whose loyalty we cannot utterly rely.

3.8 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question on quite a small point relating to this whole business, namely, whether it would not be possible to guarantee the incomes of people dismissed under this procedure which we are now discussing. I have been asked by some of my hon. Friends in this House whether my idea is that we ought to mollycoddle Fascists and Communists. Not at all, though I think it is important that we should not be drawn further than we need be towards a position in which we are unable to defend ourselves except by saying that we are not doing to the Communists and Fascists anything half as bad as Communists and Fascists would do to us if they had the power. That is a poor defence; and there is therefore something to be said for treating these people well. But I am much more concerned with Social Democrats than with Communists or Fascists.
It is idle to deny that the subject we are discussing has brought a certain amount of real concern to the very best and most sensitive democratic Socialists up and down our country. The argument on our side is, of course, that the procedure proposed by the Government is not a victimisation of anybody. Nobody is prevented from expressing his opinion in speech or in writing; nobody is locked up in gaol; nobody is "bumped off," or "taken for a ride" by secret police. There is nothing of that kind; all that is done is that certain people whose attitude towards life has been well described by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) are not to be allowed to work in certain very small areas of the public service where the top secrets are known. That is all that happens.
People ask whether there can be a tribunal before whom they appear. I do not want to offer any comment on the kind of committee suggested by the hon. Member for Rugby, but I am sure he will agree with me that there cannot be a tribunal which passes a legal judgment through a legal proceeding, because it is always impossible to prove that any

man is a Communist or a Fascist, particularly when he is very keen to disguise the true nature of his political opinions, and his resulting standards of morality and loyalty. Therefore, we cannot have a tribunal in the legal sense of the word.
Now the arguments brought against Social Democrats up and down the country where Communists are trying to chisel away support from this party are that we are depriving a man of his job, and that that is victimisation. These arguments take place in a part of our national life where victimisation, by depriving a man of his job, is something pretty well known, and which, if not a daily experience, is, at any rate, a matter of living memory. Therefore, I venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that the proposal I have made would not really cost much in money, and it would not do much harm even in giving what we might describe as "undesirable people" a little bit more rope. But it would, do enormous good, in depriving our opponents of a good arguing point against us, if it were made clear that anyone dismissed from the Service—I do not mean, of course, anyone who is moved from one branch of the Service to another; that is quite a different thing—without the chance of getting other Government employment, would not be deprived of his means of living. That would prevent those who are against us from making use of an argument which they are, in fact, making use of today.

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the House to believe that the Government ought to pay the full salaries of those who are dismissed because they cannot be trusted? If that is the case, then everybody will claim to be Communists in the hope of getting their pay for nothing.

Sir R. Acland: I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and if there were longer time, I would like to answer it, although I think he knows quite well that it is not really a valid argument.
I will conclude my remarks by putting forward one point which I would like the Prime Minister to consider. He must know that there is anxiety among his followers lest at some future time, under another Government, this same procedure, which I suppose will not now result in the dismissal of more than 20 or 30


individuals at the outside—[An HON. MEMBER: "How does the hon. Gentleman know?"]—should be used in order to dismiss enormous numbers of Social Democrats. That is a very real anxiety throughout the party which the Prime Minister leads. If the Prime Minister will adopt the suggestion I have put to him, that those who are dismissed be safeguarded until such time as they find employment of a comparable nature, he will go a very long way towards dispelling that anxiety amongst the ranks of his own party.

3.16 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has performed a great public service in using the Adjournment to raise this subject. He has performed a further service in raising the matter in the form that he did. The issue here is so important that I hope a day will be granted to debate it properly. The issue is of importance to every democratic country throughout Europe. It is an issue which every country has been compelled to deal with, and different countries have dealt with it by different forms of legislation. In this country, we are introducing a political offence for the first time. The real problem is not the offence, because we can always deal with a man who commits an offence; the new problem is that, for the first time, democracy is confronted with a political attitude of mind. Democracy is confronted for the first time with the problem of someone preaching a democratic doctrine and holding himself out to be a democrat, but seeking by these means to worm under the foundations of the State. That is a completely new problem.
Tyranny has always been the same. There is a very interesting obituary in "The Times" today, which is worthy of consideration. It is the obituary of Professor Berdyaev, who started his career as a young Marxist. He was expelled from Czarist Russia for being a revolutionary, and very early after that he became the exact opposite, a Christian libertarian. He became one of the most distinguished Russian thinkers of the day, and his books are well known throughout the world. When he adopted the new point of view, he was appointed, by Lenin of all people, to the chair of philosophy in Moscow University; but the Bolsheviks expelled him, and he had to spend the

rest of his life in Paris. There are two tyrannies, the tyranny of the Left and the tyranny of the Right, but both are exactly the same. The tragedy is that they compel free countries to act as tyrants and adopt the instrument of tyrants. In war it is quite clear that totalitarian countries seek to impose totalitarian methods upon the democracies. The democracies today are confronted for the first time with the problem of having totalitarian machinery and methods imposed on them in peace time.

Mr. Piratin: Will the hon. and learned Member say who forced the Government to introduce the present persecution and tyrannous policy in the Gold Coast?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: That is not relevant to the argument I am putting forward. One of the tragedies is this, and I hope that it will not be thought that I am using the word in a party sense; it is the decline of liberal thought and outlook in Europe. There has been a marked deterioration in tolerance of opinion and thought in every country alike, and it has been forced upon those countries today which cherish tolerance of opinion 'and thought.
That is the problem for solution—how to proclaim a new instrument to meet that situation. What instrument is to be used to meet that situation? We are asked to hand this power over to the Government—and whether the Government scheme is a good one or a bad one, I am not arguing at the moment—and to hand power over to the Executive without even discussion in this House, except on the Adjournment. Is not this a question for the country? It is important that this subject should be debated in the country, and that the people should discuss what the executive is to operate, for if we wish to make democracy safe and to make democracy work, we can do so only by making it enlightened. It can only be free if it knows what it wants to be free about. Is there a better means of achieving that purpose than by open discussion in this House as to what instrument we are to create and use?
Let there be discussions; let us not allow power to be handed to the Executive without discussion, however impartially and however well they may execute it. It is not a power which should be handed over without Parliament and the country


knowing what they are doing. That is the plea I make first and foremost. I am not going to discuss the issue, which is a big one, involving the Statutes of different countries, and I do not wish to take up too much time and to deprive others of the opportunity of speaking. I am pleading with the Government that, in the interests of the democracy of this country and of the traditions of this House, there should be ample opportunity for free discussion of the problem.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I intervene only for a very few minutes and for one purpose. The attendance which we see around us now, at such a time and on such a day, and the number of people who have risen to their feet as soon as any speaker has sat down, shows the great interest and importance attached to this subject on all sides of the House. When the question of time for Debate was raised last Thursday, the Lord President of the Council seemed to think that a demand or a request for time for a Debate indicated hostility to the actions of the Government. I only want to make quite plain that it is perfectly possible and indeed, in the case of my hon. Friends and myself, it is the fact, that one can support, and support strongly, the action of the Government and yet feel it is a subject which should be fully ventilated in Debate in this House.
The action—the generous action if I may say so—of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has enabled three more speakers to participate; but I cannot feel, that that will finally satisfy either this House or the country to whom we are responsible. It is because I feel—and I feel it all the more strongly as a result of the Debate this afternoon—that more time may be required, that I wish to have on record the attitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of myself in order that there may be no room for misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
When the Prime Minister made his statement, I said at the time that I considered the proposed action of the Government to be a wise precaution. That, I think, is the view of all of us on these benches. We do not—we must not—feel alarmed, but at the same time nobody in the situation in which we live can afford not to be a realist. We cannot imagine

that any Government worthy of the trust of this country or any Minister really fulfilling his responsibility to this House, could afford at this moment to allow people of whose trustworthiness he himself was not convinced, to have access to information which might be of vital consequence to the people of this country.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that at the General Election the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House made it absolutely clear that the people they did not trust were the Tories, with never a word about the proletariat?

Mr. Stanley: I have said a good deal in the past, and I shall say a good deal in the future, about the difference between what was said to the people by the party opposite at the General Election and what they have done to the people since the General Election; but this is not the moment for that, and I shall not be led off by that kind of interjection on a matter which, frankly, I consider of immense importance, and which cuts right across purely party differences in this House.
We support the action that the Government have taken, but we cannot be blind —no one in this House can be—to the difficulties and dangers which may be created. I do not often agree—perhaps I never shall again—with the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), but I do agree with him when he says that a great many of the descriptions applied to the proposed action of the Government are not only exaggerations, but grotesque exaggerations. The life, the liberty and the property of the individual are not involved; in a vast number of cases it may merely involve the transference of a man from one job to another within the same service; and even in the minority of cases where no alternative employment can be found in the Government Service, no obstacles are placed in the way of his earning a living outside the Government Service. Therefore, do let us avoid some of the exaggerations I have heard. Even so, we cannot deny that this does involve some interference by the Government with the individual, on the ground of his political opinion. And, justified as it may be, essential as it may be, we all desire to see that every possible safeguard is introduced to ensure that this right, so novel in peacetime, should not be ill-used, unwisely used, or unfairly used.
Although we on this side of the House support the Government, we feel keenly upon the question of possible safeguards. I myself—and I think my hon. Friends will agree with me—cannot see that, if this measure is to be effective, it is possible to have any safeguards which detract from the ultimate authority and responsibility of the Minister concerned. He is responsible to this House of Commons for the maintenance of the secrecy and security of his Department; he has to answer to us for any default in that, his duty; and I do not see how he could be made answerable to us if, in fact, his decision were to be over-ridden by the decision of some outside body, or some other individual not responsible to this House or to the Government of the day. Therefore, I would not agree with any proposed tribunal, or individual, which sought to take authority from the Minister concerned. Apart from that, I can see many ways—and some have been suggested this afternoon—by which individuals, or committees if you like, may not fetter the Minister, but could advise and assist him. It is because we want to explore the possibility of that kind of assistance, and 'because we want to know the extent of the field to be covered, that we who in this matter support the Government desire the most ample time for a Debate.
Finally, I say to the Prime Minister: I cannot help feeling that, even though his statement may, as I hope, on many of these points meet our demands, so long as there is an unsatisfied desire for debate of this matter among Members of this House, so long may there be a rankling feeling of opposition. Here is a case where I believe that the Government are absolutely secure in their answer. They are absolutely right in what they are doing and they therefore have no reason to fear the amplest debate in this House.

3.31 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The fact that we are having this Debate and the fact of the things that have been expressed show how strongly we stand in this country for the rights of conscience and the rights of freedom of expression. I made the statement, not because I was seeking to be given more rights for the Government—those rights already exist—but in order that there might be no con-

cealment in the matter. We have nothing whatever to conceal.
In this Debate we have had some extremely reasonable speeches, such as those from the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), from the hon. Member who opened the Debate and from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I was rather sorry that the Debate went off on a political line. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) obviously led the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) right away into the wilderness. I am not going to comment upon the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife. It consisted of violent attacks of all kinds, and the usual Communist statements alleging that everything the Government have done was done at the orders of American millionaires, and all the rest of it. He was very careful not to deal with the real issue and the real fact of Communist infiltration. In fact, as in all these matters, the Communist patter is very much the same. One always knows what the Communists' line is going to be, because they always denounce someone else for doing what they themselves are going to do. In the same way, when we have all this talk of aggression and pressure, one knows that it is the ordinary sort of dust storm that is kicked up by Communists.
Today we are considering a matter of very high importance, and that is our Civil Service. Our Civil Service has a very high tradition, unequalled in the whole world. In our attitude towards our Civil Service we have always taken the line that we take today: the civil servant may hold any political views that he likes. How happy they would be in Eastern Europe if their civil servants could do the same. We always demand from our civil servants a loyalty to the State, and that they should serve the Government of the day, whatever its political colour. That undertaking is carried out with exemplary loyalty. Any departure from this system would mean that adoption of a spoils system, and would destroy our Civil Service. That loyalty is the basis of our system. No one should enter that Service unless he is prepared to be loyal.
The civil servant holds office at the pleasure of the Crown. He can he dismissed. There is no remedy at law if he is dismissed if his conduct and efficiency do not come up to standard. Further, he has no right to occupy a particular


office and to be in a particular Department. Even promotion does not come of right. A man can be transferred from any part of the Civil Service. I put those facts because we might as well be clear what the facts are. Dismissal means forfeiture of pension rights. Pension rights in the Civil Service are not on a contributory basis. They are acquired after a certain amount of service. If someone is dismissed or leaves the Service before those rights have accrued, he has no remedy. There are certain exceptional cases where some technicians who have already come under a university scheme carry on with the university scheme in the Civil Service, but the general rule is as I have stated. I cannot for a moment accept the rather naive suggestion of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) that we should somehow or other guarantee a life pension to everyone as a reward for being a Communist.
Let us look at the matter broadly, because the reliability of the members of the Civil Service and their position extends over the whole field of the Civil Service. Naturally in promotions and postings responsible officers always have to consider whether a man is fit for the job. For instance, if someone is to be put in a place where a very high measure of discretion is needed, they would not appoint someone who was known to be a talker and could not keep secrets. He would be employed somewhere else. The man in charge of the Department is responsible, and obviously he would not employ a talker. In the same way, a person may he dismissed for various reasons. Dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Gravesend, suppose a man is dismissed because he has become a hopeless drunkard. I do not say that he is either more or less entitled to a perpetual pension than someone who has become a Communist. The only reason for the dismissal is that the man cannot do the job.
Why do we have to make the present announcement? It is because of the existence of people in this country who hold a different loyalty from that of the majority of the citizens of this country and from those who enter the Civil Service. They fall into two groups.

Mr. Gallacher: They are loyal to the working class and no other.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for West Fife has made my point. What he chooses to call "working class" generally appears to us to be an alien bureaucracy. The fact is that these parties are undemocratic and do not accept the obligations of loyalty, and, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Rugby, they do not accept the ordinary morality that enables us to deal with each other in our ordinary business in the world—

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman has chosen a great authority on morality.

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, these things are confessed by the more honest type of Communist. If we ask him, he will tell us that his loyalty is not to this country but that he has an outside loyalty. He is quite frank and honest about it. Well, he can hold that view, but it inhibits him from serving loyally in the Civil Service in this country.
We cannot escape the impact of events that are happening all over the world—the overthrowing of democratic institutions one way or another, by force, by fraud and by infiltration. We can watch the pattern of Communist methods all over the world. We have seen one country after another going down under them. We have the very vivid illustration of the Canadian case. I entirely agree with the hon. Member who said that it deserves careful reading. I thought that it had been given a pretty fair amount of publicity, but I will look and see if it should be given any more, because it is extremely interesting. We can trace in that both the Communist and the "fellow-traveller" and also the innocent person who is brought, in the expressive language of the report of the Russian secret service agent, "into the net." He is gradually dragged in, a little way first of all, until he is too hopelessly enmeshed and his loyalty is undermined. We have, therefore, to look at this attacking from within, and it is the duty of any Government to take action.
In addition to all these classes of pro-fessed Fascists and Communists, there are also the crypto-Communists. The question was asked whether we could have a list of the bands or organisations, but any one who has had experience of Communist activities over a number of years will know the number of disguises in which Communists appear, with a litter of


"Friends" of various countries—that is the general title. Therefore, one cannot lay down something quite as simply as that.
There must be secrets of Government, particularly in relation to defence, but there are other secrets as well, and as long as we are in a world where there is a possibility of war, we must have defences, and those secrets must be preserved. Therefore, we have to look very closely to see if we are sufficiently guarded in these matters. However, whatever policy is adopted must be wisely administered and, as an hon. and gallant Member opposite said, moderately administered. Let me say that there is no truth in a rumour which has been going round that every policeman has been asked his political opinions. That is the kind of story which is put out. I agree, too, that there should be no general purge, no general witch hunt. Therefore, we need an extremely clear directive, and that very clear directive will be given.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend publish the directive?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that. I do not think that as a general rule one publishes these directives. I doubt it, but I will look into the matter. There is no action being taken against opinion. Anyone can hold any opinions as such, but where those opinions have brought people into close connection with or membership of organisations, and it is known that that leads to subversive action, then one has to deal with it. It is limited to excluding from secret work those who cannot be trusted. I should have thought that the hon. Member for West Fife would have been astounded at the moderation of this decision, which proposes to keep Communists in the State service except in a very limited number of posts. I hope he will send a full account of these statements to other countries with which he is in sympathy.
I think myself there is a prima facie case against members of Communist and Fascist organisations that they have a divided loyalty which is far more difficult in the cases where the person is not actually a member, and, therefore, the very greatest care must be taken. I must stress that we want the very greatest, care. The hon. Member for Rugby

pointed out that one cannot act on statements of fact; they have to be assessed very carefully. One has to see that people have a wide enough knowledge. For instance, the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) had not quite enough knowledge; if he had had a little more knowledge, he would not have suggested that I made the Communist salute in Spain, because that salute was common to all the Republicans, whether Catholics or Communists or anybody else, at that time. That shows how necessary it is to have statements of fact assessed by people with knowledge.
In a great many of these cases that come up there is no question of dismissal. Wherever the individual can be used usefully in other Departments, he will be so used, but there may be certain cases of technicians who cannot be employed anywhere else. In such cases there is no option but dismissal. The procedure must be fair to the individual. It must be fair to the State. Equally, it must be fair to other civil servants. That is a point worth bearing in mind. If there are people engaged in secret work, it is extremely difficult for them to work if there are other people with whom they have to work in a team whom they cannot trust; therefore, they are entitled to know that the people with whom they are to work can be trusted.
In regard to information, there are the security authorities. It is easy to raise prejudice against them, and I quite agree that we must have the greatest care, and I am perfectly well aware, as is everyone, that there have been cases of extreme stupidity in the past. I hope and believe we have reformed that a good deal, but they deal with difficult and responsible work, and I know that members of that service would welcome there being every possible safeguard. Remember, the security services are not the judges in this matter. They are not the deciding factor. They provide information; they may advise in regard to something, but the actual decision must be taken by the responsible Minister.
Suppose there is a case in which there is room to suspect disloyalty. The first thing to be done is to see that the civil servant concerned is informed. He should not be merely informed that he is suspected, but should be given, as far as possible, chapter and verse, saying,


"You are a member of this organisation, you did this or that, can you explain it?" He ought to have the case put before him perfectly clearly. Secondly, he must be given the opportunity of studying that case, and then given the opportunity of putting in his reply, and also of making his reply. That then goes before the Departmental head, who must consider whether it is a matter in which action must be taken. He must then go to the Minister, and, whatever we think of Ministers, they have a pretty fair knowledge of psychology, as they have been in this House for some time. They will have a broad view; we have to take a broad view of these things. They will look at the whole of the evidence and consider whether or not there is a prima facie case for transferring this man on these grounds or, it may be, even for dismissing him.
Then we want something beyond the Minister to assist him. We are, therefore, proposing a further safeguard. We are setting up an advisory body of three retired civil servants. I hope to give the names some time, and I am quite sure they will be names which will inspire confidence in the Civil Service. If the Minister considers there is a prima facie case, he will send the whole of the evidence before this body. Before this body the person concerned will be able to appear and make his case. He will also be able to ask other people to speak for him. The whole of this will be sifted very carefully, wherever the information comes from, by this advisory body; and the advisory body will then send their advice to the Minister. The Minister will then have to decide on the whole of the case as to whether he takes their advice, or rejects their advice, or what action he proposes to take. That, I think, gives the opportunity people ought to have of stating their case. It is quite impossible —and everyone will realise that it is—that we should give in detail exactly the sources of information. If we do that, we destroy anything like an effective security service. But it is our intention to do this with the greatest possible tenderness for the individual, consistent with the security of the community and, as I have said, the security of the fellow members of the Civil Service.

Mr. Blackburn: I hope that this procedure,

unless the individual in question desires otherwise, will be kept absolutely secret, so that the system may have the great advantage that no public stigma of any kind will be attached to any individual removed or dismissed, because, after all, he is not subject to a judicial process.

The Prime Minister: Exactly. One does not want to damnify the people. That is why we have to watch this very carefully.
A further point made from the other side was that we ought to try to get uniformity of practice. I think the fact that this comes before this advisory body will build up uniformity of practice as between different Departments, which will be of the greatest value. I do not think that there is going to be anything like a great number of dismissals. There will be some, and they will be dismissals of persons who are perfectly honest and fanatical in their belief in Communism. I am not passing moral judgment on them. I say that, owing to the fact that they have a different loyalty, they cannot serve the State. In the majority of instances, all that will be necessary will be a transfer to another Department. There, again, it is a matter between the individual and the Department—and let me stress that this is not something new. Obviously, in the running of a great State, consideration has to be given to the suitability of a particular individual for this post or that post.
As this matter has come up, I thought it fair to make a general statement to the House and to the country; otherwise it might come up over the case of some individual, and it might act hardly against the individual Minister. I am bound to say that we are living in very anxious times, and we do know the way this kind of method is pursued by the Communists. It is not for me to say whether we should have a further Debate on that. That is a matter that can be considered through the usual channels. The Government have shown that they have nothing to hide in this matter. They want the whole thing fully discussed. I think that we should discuss it as a very difficult problem of Government. I deplore the fact that we have moved into an age in which there are these subversive parties. They are the enemies of democracy and free speech, and if they creep into the Civil


Service, they are the enemies of the freedom of the Civil Service and the Government Service I am not going to deal with the irrelevancies put forward by the hon. Member for West Fife. He can accuse me of many things, but he can never accuse me of approving of the Communist Party.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The procedure which the Prime Minister has outlined to the House, and which, in my judgment, is very good and right, entirely falls under the umbrella of the Civil Service. There is a different aspect of this question. If there is a number of dismissals, there may be Press reports and Questions asked in Parliament. Is there any provision in the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman intends to adopt for a report to the House of Commons and to the public as to the administration?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that ought to be done. I do not want to have these things dragged out. I think that in some cases where a man is to be dismissed, he can be given the option of resigning. One does not want to hinder people getting other posts or anything, and I think that if we had publication of the whole thing, it would cause far more disturbance than anything else.

Mr. John Paton: May I ask the Prime Minister one question with regard to the advisory body? Would it be possible to report the terms of reference to the House, so that it may be on the records, and so that it cannot be enlarged at any future time under another Government without the knowledge of the House?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any point in that, because the reference is simply to advise the Minister. But I will look into that point.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but I would like to ask whether it would be within the competence of the proposed advisory body of retired civil servants to send, not only for the papers that would be supplied, but also for the man himself?

The Prime Minister: I think that is quite clear. He would certainly appear.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Would the Prime Minister consider bearing in mind for future consideration the question of a Secret Session of this House?

Mr. Benn Levy: May I ask whether it will be obligatory on the Minister to disclose whether his final decision is in conformity with the advice of the tribunal or against it, because that would be a very valuable check in itself? Also, is it still true that this will affect Fascists as well as Communists, because to the best of my recollection I do not think the Prime Minister has mentioned Fascists throughout his speech.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is mistaken, I mentioned Fascists several times. It would be quite wrong to disclose whether the decision of the Minister conforms with the advice of the tribunal. That would be setting up the tribunal, as a final authority, and the point is that the Minister must be responsible. He is responsible whether he takes the advice or not.

LANE PICTURE BEQUEST

3.57 P.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On raising this matter of the Lane Picture Bequest, I wish to make two things perfectly clear. First of all, I am anxious to say nothing which would in any way disturb the increasingly friendly relations between this country and our Irish neighbours. That could easily be done about a subject on which feeling has at times run very high, and which is of an intriguing and fascinating, not to say controversial, historical value. Secondly, I am one who believes that the next move regarding the Lane Picture Bequest must come from this country, if any further step is to be taken, and Hugh Lane's clearly expressed wishes are to be honoured and implemented. Legally, of course, the claim of this country to the pictures is absolutely undoubted, and, in my view, it would be unbecoming, especially at this time, for us to expect the Irish to invoke the moral law too pressingly for the purpose of acquiring property of great charm and considerable value. That is why I say we in this country must look at the issue again, and ourselves take the initiative.
Having said that, I think I should briefly sketch in the background to my further remarks, if only for the sake of those not entirely familiar with it. In the year 1903 Hugh Lane, a colourful, slightly eccentric Irishman and a passionate admirer of contemporary painting, founded an art gallery in Dublin He wished to leave the remarkable collection of pictures which he gradually acquired by dint of ingenuity and by buying in the right places at the right times and prices, to the City of Dublin. He had in a very special sense that sure instinct for beauty which I, for one, regard as being so often absent in judges of art in these days. Difficulties arose about a place in which to house the pictures, and in what appears to nave been a fit of pique Hugh Lane bequeathed them to the London National Gallery in a, will dated 13th October, 1913.
In March, 1914, he was appointed a director of the National Gallery of Ireland, a fact which seems to have altered his outlook. In the National Gallery of Ireland, in his own room, on 3rd February, 1915, he wrote a codicil to his original will leaving these pictures to the City of Dublin. This codicil, a photostat of which I have with me here this afternoon, was signed by Hugh Lane, but was never duly witnessed. Three months later, on 7th March,' 1915, tie went down in the Lusitania, returning from a visit to America. The 39 pictures which have been the subject of controversy ever since, are mostly of the French impressionist school and are all of very high artistic merit. They include Renoir's "Les Parapluies," which is on exhibition at the National Gallery today, and others which I saw only recently at the Tate Gallery such as Degas' "Le Plage," Manet's "Concert aux Tuileries," as well as Corot's lovely picture of the Palace of the Popes at Avignon and others, some of which are still actually stored in the vaults below the Tate Gallery.
An authority on pictures recently told me that he reckoned that this collection, compared with any other collection of pictures in the world, was priceless, but that if a monetary value had to be placed on it, he would put it at no less than £5oo,000. On the first part of his journey to America, Lane was accompanied to Liverpool by Sir Alexander Martin of Christie's. Sir Alexander has made a statutory declaration in the following terms:

I have been asked to state in a word my impression of Sir Hugh Lane's wishes regarding these pictures in so far as I gathered it in conversation with him when I accompanied him to Liverpool. I am pleased to accede to this request, and I should like to preface it with the remark that it was the more strongly fixed in my mind because his wishes as he expressed them were not those with which I had most sympathy. Personally, I should have preferred to have seen the pictures placed in London rather than in Dublin. From earlier conversations, I was aware, of course, of Sir Hugh Lane's deep interest in Ireland and was not, therefore, at all surprised when on this occasion he spoke of it, and of his recent visit to Dublin, with the greatest affection. He spoke to me also of the Modern Gallery, referring again to the ambition that he had entertained when collecting the pictures of seeing them housed in Dublin, and he gave me to understand that his mind was made up that it should after all be the destination of his pictures.
The really reliable protagonists and those who recognise the moral duty resting on this country to honour in one way or another Sir Hugh Lane's last wishes are, unfortunately, most of them dead. Not least of them was Lady Gregory, Lane's aunt, who was appointed sole trustee under the unwitnessed codicil to his will. Samuel Johnson wrote to Lord Chesterfield:
Seven years have now passed since waited in your outer room or was repulsed from your door.
Not for seven years, Mr. Speaker, but for 17, Lady Gregory, now dead, struggled to carry out the bequest entrusted to her keeping. She waited very often in the outer rooms of this Palace of Westminster. Very often she was repulsed. Not for the past 20 years, as the Prime Minister said to me quite mistakenly on 5th February in reply to a Question which I asked him in this House, but for the past 3o years, the matter of the Lane pictures has been considered very inadequately by successive go vernments. The fact that it has remained open for so long is surely one very good reason for bringing it before this House today.
The late Lord Carson was another who took up this question. Although an Orangeman, to his very great credit, he tried to give Ireland her rights by legislation, but, unfortunately, his objective was never realised. Among those of their contemporaries who really know the facts, I know of only one still living—Mr. Bernard Shaw—and it is something to know that he thought, according to his


own words, that this was "a very strong case," and he also said that it was indeed hard "to get butter out of a dog's mouth."
My second reason for raising this question is to ensure that it is kept in its right perspective, divorced, as far as possible, from prejudice, false sentiment and sheer abuse. National antipathies have already in the past exacerbated feelings, as, for instance, when a certain Colonel Lambert Ward in this House said that these pictures should be sold in order to compensate the South of Ireland Loyalists. On 5th February, when I questioned the Prime Minister, the hon. and erudite Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory) asked whether it was safe to hand over any great work of art to a nation capable of destroying the statue of His Sacred Majesty King William III. The sacredness of this sovereign is a matter for historians and Scots to judge, and its introduction by the hon. Member was, in my judgment, highly irrelevant.
I ask my right hon. Friend who will reply to the Debate to recognise that, in resolving this controversy, he will be improving our relations with Ireland, and, now that I have brought it out for an airing, I hope the Government will bear in mind all the points I have made. A Government with the splendid record of our own, obviously, is not one which is for a moment insensible to the paramount importance of moral rights. Here, surely, is a case for them to act about when the time comes. If they cannot find a parallel, for example in the recently announced return of the "Kitty Hawk"—the first powered aircraft ever to leave the ground —to the. United States, after it had been bequeathed by Mr. Orville Wright to the Science Museum at South Kensington, I hope they will look at some other method of settling this very vexed problem.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend could use his influence to see that something about the Lane pictures is included in the Bill which I understand is later to be introduced into this House, though not in the present Session, and which will settle the relationship between the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. At least, I hope he will understand the need to explore any and every avenue to help to settle this controversial question between ourselves and the South of Ireland, and that

he will not seek to shelter behind any mere technicality: I am quite sure that is not his method.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Carson: I rise to support most of the points raised on this matter this afternoon by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge). My father, the late Lord Carson, was not a great friend of Southern Ireland, and did not exactly love the Republic of Eire, but he was quite convinced in his own mind—and I have heard him say so —that these Lane pictures really did belong to Eire, and should go back there. I have been, told that he had conversations with Lady Gregory, whom the hon. Member for Bedford mentioned, at which my mother, who is still alive, was present, and she will testify that he gave as his very definite opinion that we in this country had no moral right, even if we had a technically legal right, to keep these pictures here. Further, I would say that he was given a very fine book on the pictures, which was prepared by Mr. Thomas Bodkin, and sent to him in 1934 with a letter from Mr. de Valera—which may seem rather paradoxical and strange—thanking him for the help he had given, and for the attempts he had made to try to get the Sir Hugh Lane bequest returned to Eire.
As far as I can see, up to now every Prime Minister of this country, whatever his political views may have been, and every Government have funked this issue, have sheltered behind the technical legality of the position, and taken no notice at all of the moral issue. I cannot see that that is any reason for the Financial Secretary, who is going to reply, to shelter behind the same legal technicality, and to say that, because it has been done before, it should be done again. I think the time is now long overdue for this question to be faced. After all, it is not a question of how Eire has behaved in the past; it is not even a question of how she is behaving now, or will behave in the future; it is not a question of what she did in the war, or of whether partition is right or wrong. It is a question of international morality and of what is really right. How can we condemn other countries in the world for being internationally immoral if we continue along this line?
I submit that as the hon. Member for Bedford has conclusively shown, there


is no question at all as to what Sir Hugh Lane desired to be done with these particular pictures. It is as clear as day. The Government should not continue to shelter behind the strict letter of the law; they should consider the moral aspect of the matter, and should do what is right, irrespective of any other circumstances that they may feel to be involved.

4.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The facts as given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) are, of course, correct. So far as we are concerned, this story starts with the will which Sir Hugh Lane made on 11th October, 1913, when he quite definitely, and without any ambiguity, left these 39 pictures to the National Gallery. It is also true that, by a codicil dated 3rd February, 1915, he revoked that bequest and left the pictures to the City of Dublin on condition that a suitable building in which to house them was provided within five years of his death. That codicil was not witnessed; therefore, both in Ireland and in this country, it had no legal effect. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) both said. I for one would not wish to shelter behind strict technical legality. However, I have to tell both hon. Gentlemen and the House that the story is not quite so simple as that.
In spite of the evidence which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet quoted of the view held by his late and very famous father, it is by no means certain that Sir Hugh Lane had, in fact, made up his mind when he went down in the Lusitania. He was a business man—I agree he was eccentric—and it is curious that such a man should have made a codicil to his will in February, 1915, and made no attempt to give it legality before he died.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The right hon. Gentleman must know that during that interval of one year Sir Hugh Lane was in correspondence with the Corporation of Dublin?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will complete the story as I see it. It may be, in the course of my unfolding of it, that I shall cover some points which are occurring to Members on both sides. There has been a good deal of interest in this matter for

over 3o years, and the facts are fairly well known to many people both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I am not clear what year the right hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The codicil was executed on 3rd February, 1915, and it was never witnessed. Between then and the time at which Sir Hugh Lane died, a fairly considerable time elapsed. Certainly, it is a longer time than he would have left if he had wanted the codicil to be in the proper form.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the date of death of Sir Hugh Lane to show what interval elapsed between then and the codicil?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I want to tell the story in its sequence. It is by no means certain that the codicil expressed the donor's wishes in their final shape. Proceedings were taken in the High Court on 25th May, 1917, to decide whether this codicil was valid or not. It was decided quite definitely and declared that this property legally belonged to the Trustees of the National Gallery. From that day to this the pictures have been in England, and have been the property of the National Gallery. In July, 1924, owing to the feelings shown in this matter, the Government of the day set up a Committee under the late Mr. J. W. Wilson, M.P. for North Worcester. That Committee reported on two points. First by a majority, that in their view Sir Hugh Lane thought that he was making a valid legal disposition in his codicil. Secondly, that no legislation should be introduced to modify the will—and I ask the House to take note of this, because this Committee was much nearer to the event than we are—because it would constitute a legal precedent of the utmost gravity not justified by the facts, and it would in addition have the effect of bringing about a result contrary to the real' spirit of Sir Hugh Lane's intentions.
Why should the Committee form that conclusion and come to that decision? They took evidence and saw a number of eminent people whose word we all trust, even though many of us did not know them. Both Lord Curzon and Mr. McColl gave evidence and made statutory declarations to the effect that right


up to the time that Sir Hugh Lane was about to sail to the United States he gave neither of them any indication whatever that he had changed his mind, or that he was then thinking of letting these pictures go to Dublin. In fact, Mr. McColl, in order to find a proper gallery to house these pictures, had entered into negotiations with Mr.—afterwards Sir Joseph—Duveen for funds to build a gallery in London. Sir Hugh Lane was well aware of what was going on and, in fact, approved of these negotiations. It is curious now to look back and to imagine that Sir Hugh Lane would allow these negotiations to continue if he had -at the time finally and irrevocably made up his mind that the pictures should go to Dublin.
Sir Robert Witt was another witness who saw a fair amount of Sir Hugh Lane at that time, and he often discussed with him the question of the pictures and their ultimate destination. At no time, up to the moment he sailed to the United States, did Sir Hugh Lane take any steps to prevent the negotiations going on with Sir Joseph Duveen. In fact, he left for America knowing full well that the result of the negotiations was favourable and that this gallery would probably be built.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: May I interrupt to make one point. The Financial Secretary seems to be overlooking the fact that Sir Alexander Martin was one of the last people with Sir Hugh Lane when Sir Hugh was in this country, and actually accompanied him to the boat at Liverpool. His sworn declaration, which I have read to the House, would seem to be of more relevance and importance than the authorities whom the Financial Secretary i4 now quoting.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There you have the conflict of evidence. I am not here as an advocate for one side or the other. I am simply here to put the facts. What I am trying to show to the House is that it is quite obvious that Sir Hugh Lane was either keeping his real wishes a close secret or else he was at that time unable to make up his mind and was allowing both sides to imagine that they might get the pictures, listening to what they had to say, and allowing his mind to vary one way or the other.
I wish to emphasise that it is by no means clear on moral grounds, that Sir Hugh Lane had, at the time of his death,

finally and irrevocably decided that these pictures were to go to Dublin and not remain in London. Not only has Sir Alexander Martin made the declaration, to which my hon. Friend has referred, but there are other men who have made statements. Three of them I have mentioned. There was also Mr. Charles Aitken, Director of the Tate Gallery, who also swore a declaration to the same effect, that, so far as he knew from the conversations he had with Sir Hugh Lane, he was going to leave the pictures to London if a suitable building were provided. Sir Hugh Lane was thus egging them on—if I may use such a phrase —or certainly was not preventing their continuing with the negotiations to provide this gallery.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Financial Secretary has spoken about moral grounds. Has he taken advice as to what is usually done—or is very often done—where property is left by a will and the disposition is altered by a codicil which turns out to be legally or technically unsatisfactory? Is it not very often the case that the property is voluntarily given up by the beneficiary who is technically but not morally in the right, or is even divided between the two beneficiaries? Should not that be done in this case?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If there were time, I would have come to that solution, which has already been considered. It has been suggested that the pictures might be divided, or alternatively they might be shown in Dublin for a given period of years and then shown in London for another given period. Perhaps I may tell the House that in the early 1920's that solution was put to the people in Dublin, but Mr. Cosgrave turned it down and would have nothing to do with it. The Irish wanted the pictures, and nothing but the pictures: nothing less would satisfy them.
That is the position. The authorities here in London proceeded with their plans, a gallery was provided, and the pictures have been housed here. At the present moment one of them is being shown at the National Gallery, and I am told that every week about 25,000 people see that picture. Were those pictures in Dublin, nothing like the same number of people would see them.

Mr. Carson: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If these pictures are irreplaceable, as they are, and if they are the inheritance of the whole world and not only of the Irish people, obviously there is something to say for having them where both the Irish and others can see them.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the Financial Secretary realise that Dublin is a cultural centre just as much as London?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am putting the facts forward, without arguing one way or the other. I refer to this aspect in passing to show that these pictures attract a great deal of attention. That being so, we have a right to look at the problem much more closely than we should if we were discussing a collection which could be replaced, or one which consisted of pictures by artists whose work could be duplicated from other sources. That is the real difficulty which confronts us now. A very large body of opinion in this country believes that, on moral as well as legal grounds, these pictures should remain where they are. I ask the House to remember that this is not a question of the Government refusing to give in to universal pressure. There are many arguments on the side cif those who want the pictures to be seen, and the Trustees of the National Gallery are among those who would like them to remain in London.
The pictures have been there for so long that the Trustees of the National Gallery took no steps, when they might have done, to get examples of the 19th century French school of painting, and that moment is now passed. These pictures are quite irreplaceable, even if the money could be found to buy examples of the work of these artists. To let the Pictures go completely would leave great gaps, which the Trustees of the National Gallery feel they could hardly contemplate.
It is therefore felt to be quite impossible, at the moment at any rate, to reopen this issue, and to let the 39 pictures go to Dublin, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend. This matter has been looked at by successive Governments; they and the present Government have examined it with great care, and they

have had to take note of feeling both in this country and elsewhere. I see no reason at the moment—and I stress, at the moment—to re-open this matter, particularly as, in the past, it has been suggested that the Irish and the British should share these pictures, if such an amicable arrangement could be made.

Mr. Driberg: My right hon. Friend said himself that that suggestion was made a good many years ago; so, since that obviously is the best compromise, would he not consider re-opening the question on that basis?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Mr. Glenvil Hall indicated assent.

FIXED EASTER

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: In rising to ask the Government, Mr. Speaker, if they will take the steps that are necessary and that are in their power, to arrest the vagrant tendency of Easter, I should like to dispel any idea that this proposal is some academic or theoretical proposition, by drawing the attention of the House to the fact that there is upon the Statute Book a law definitely fixing Easter on the same date and on a specific date in every year. That law needs only the issue of an Order in Council to bring it into full operation. Perhaps I might read part of that Act to the House. It obtained the Royal Assent on 3rd August, 1928. It reads thus:
Clause 1. Easter Day shall, in the calendar year next but one after the commencement of this Act and in all subsequent years, be the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April.
I will not go into the complicated ecclesiastical reasons why it should be the second Saturday and not the second Sunday. Those are, I think, identical, except when April happens to begin on Sunday. The Act goes on, in Subsection 2 of Clause 2 to say:
Clause 2. This Act shall commence and come into operation on such date as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council.
The Subsection concludes with the not unimportant words:
before making such draft order, regard shall he had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body
I take those words to mean that such opinion shall be given full consideration


and not that the opinion shall prevail against other and larger considerations of which account may have to be taken. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had full regard for the widely representative expressions of opinion against the abolition of university representation, but in spite of those opinions he carried through his nefarious work to the end. The words in the Easter Act mean that the opinion of the Churches should be given full weight, but not that it should necessarily prevail.
I would recall the Debate that took place when the Easter Bill was in process of becoming an Act It was a Private Member's Measure. Those were the days before Private Members' rights were thrust into the dust—although I have to recognise that I am enjoying one of those rights at this moment. The Second Reading of the Bill was moved by a, former Deputy-Chairman of Committees, Captain Bourne, and was seconded by one of my predecessors as junior Burgess for Cambridge University, Sir John Withers. This is one more example of the great utility of university representation. A more important point is that the Bill was given the fullest support in this House by a predecessor of the Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, and, even more emphatically in another place by the Earl of Birkenhead, who was at that time Secretary of State for India.
Equally important is the genesis of the Bill. It originated in no ecclesiastical or academic circle, but among those most eminently practical bodies, the Chambers of Commerce of this country, the Commonwealth and the whole world. Resolutions in favour of the fixation of Easter were passed by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, by the Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire meeting at Ottawa, and—much more important —by an international congress of Chambers of Commerce representing 37 nations, very many of them Roman Catholic nations, a fact which is not irrelevant, in view of the opposition which has been manifested at times by the Roman Catholic Church to this proposal.
It is not surprising that business men should feel strongly about the dislocation caused by the errant tendency of Easter year by year. Take a comparatively trivial case, its effect on the school and university terms. A Member of this House

was telling me only the day before yesterday that of his two children one was at a school which had already broken up for Easter and the other at a school which had taken Easter in its stride and was not releasing its pupils for some weeks yet. That may be said to be a minor inconvenience, and so it is in the case of a single family, but if we multiply it by some hundreds of thousands of families, it is worth while taking into consideration. This irregularity of Easter also makes for the dislocation of law terms which cannot be spaced as they would otherwise be.
It also complicates life for the railway systems of various countries, as is shown by the very interesting fact that this matter, when brought before the League of Nations, came to it by way of its transit and communications section. When that organisation communicated with the railway systems of various countries they got emphatic replies in favour of the stabilisation of Easter from the railway undertakings of Great Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. I understand that when the Measure was under discussion here, holiday resorts were equally emphatic in desiring a fixed Easter. If I had been a little more enterprising I might have secured the support of the hon. Members who were dealing with holiday resorts earlier today because I am sure they would have agreed unanimously. The drapers, of whose activities I have comparatively small knowledge, also desire this reform because the spring fashions are better brought in in spring, neither at the tail end of winter nor at the beginning of summer. The date fixed in this Measure —the second Sunday in April—commends itself to that branch of the commercial community. What hon. Members opposite, if they were present, might think more important is that the cotton operatives of the North are extremely anxious to have their Whitsun, which is more important to them than Easter, on a fixed date, and the Whitsun holiday is determined by the date of Easter.
There is another consideration. We live in a day when statistics have very rightly assumed a large place in our national life and comparisons of the statistics of production and other matters are very necessary and desirable, but this habit of Easter makes a comparison of March with March and April with April very difficult, because as a rule we find


Easter in March one year—when production goes down because of the interposition of that holiday—but not in March next year, so that all comparison is vitiated. The same is true of an April-to-April comparison.
The thing goes a little further than that and affects the whole of our financial year. It happens that the financial year begins on 6th April, when the oscillations of Easter are in full career. It may well be that in one year there will be two sets of Easter holidays, with the arrest of production that involves, and in the next year no Easter at all. It so happens that at the present moment we are having very interesting examples of the presence and absence of Easter. As the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) mentioned just now in another connection, Easter Sunday happened to be on 6th April in 1947 so that part of the Easter holiday—the Good Friday—was in one financial year and the Easter Monday part was in the next financial year. The consequence is that in the year 1946–47 —I assume that it is desirable that each financial year should contain one set of Easter holidays and only one—there were one and a half Easters and in 1947–48 there are again one and a half, but next year there will be no Easter at all because Easter this year falls before the beginning of the financial year and the next year after the end of the financial year. Therefore, all the statistical comparisons, which are of great value, are vitiated by this wandering tendency on the part of Easter.
So far I have claimed with some confidence that all the arguments are in favour of celebrating Easter on a fixed date, but what is there to be said on the other side? Why should the ecclesiastical bodies in the past have allowed or even instigated Easter to wander in this way —ecclesiastical bodies who, I have no doubt, would have been shocked at the idea of Christmas adopting such tendencies and varying from some date at the end of November to some date at the beginning of January. We have this remarkable anomaly that, speaking with all reverence, the celebration of the birth of Christ is on a fixed date which, as far as can be calculated, is the real anniversary and corresponds with the date of the birth of Christ, whereas the celebration of the death and resurrection of

Christ are celebrated on different dates which do not, and cannot, bear any possible relevance to the actual event in history.
There is no rational ground whatever for this movability of Easter, and I submit, there never has been. We observe Christmas by the sun, by the solar system, and we observe Easter by the moon, but not by the moon which hon. Members observe in the heavens when they go out at night, but by a purely artificial ecclesiastical moon. It is the outcome of the miscalculations of an Athenian astronomer named Meton who lived about the time of the Peloponnesian war, 43o years before the birth of Christ, when astronomical science had not been carried to a very high degree of accuracy, and it was adopted by the Gregorian Calendar in 1582—but that calendar was not accepted in this country until the year 1752. Hon. Members who are better acquainted with the back pages of the Book of Common Prayer than I am will know how some elaborate operation has to be conducted by way of Dominical Days and Golden Numbers in order to discover in any year where Easter has chosen to pitch down on that particular occasion.
Ecclesiastical assemblies have argued about this question from time to time quite inconclusively. Those numberless students of ecclesiastical history whom I see around me will recall the Council of Nicaea where one aspect of the subject was discussed and decided in A.D. 325, and the Synod of Whitby in A.D. 664, when certain decisions regarding the celebration of Easter in this country were taken. In those discussions, however, there was no great hostility to the idea of the stabilisation of Easter, and when the matter came before the League of Nations in the middle 1920's some singularly interesting discussions took place. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Holy See, and the Oecumenical Patriarch were all invited to send representatives to discuss this question. They did send their representatives, it was discussed, a great deal of harmony was achieved, and it was stated by all three churches that there was no dogmatic objection whatever to the step of stabilising Easter. However, the Roman Catholic Church said that in view of the long tradition of a movable Easter, they would like to bring the matter before an Oecumenical conference. It was reported, when


the matter was discussed in another place, that the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Davidson, speaking at the Lambeth Conference in 192o to no fewer than 250 bishops—a very awe-inspiring spectacle—put the question to them and found that they were unanimously in favour of this change. During those same debates in another place, Lord FitzAlan of Derwent, who was well known to hon. Members of this House as Mr. Edmund Talbot, and a prominent member of the Roman Catholic Church, expressed the strong belief that the authorities of his Church would approve of the proposal. I am bound to add—particularly since I know that the Home Secretary would do it for me if I did not—that the Roman Catholic Church decided as late as 1942 that they could not approve of this proposal. That is an opinion officially expressed to which regard must be had, in the light of the considerations and restrictions which I have already indicated.
Therefore the position now is that if the Government should decide to exercise their powers under the Act of 1928—

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the attitude of the Orthodox Churches on a fixed Easter? He did not deal with those as fully as he did with the Roman Catholic Church?

Mr. Harris: I will say a word about that in a moment. The position now is that if the Home Secretary should decide in his discretion before the end of this year to bring the Act into effect by means of an Order in Council, the Easter of 195o would be fixed for the Sunday after the second Saturday in April, and would remain on that date for all future time so far as this country is concerned. The question arises whether such action could properly be taken, or could be taken at all, by a single country, and the obvious answer is that it could. There is a considerable differenc even between this country and Scotland in the observation of certain religious events. I took the opportunity of ascertaining from the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), who speaks with unrivalled authority on the strange habits of his native country, that Christmas goes practically unobserved North of the Tweed, the holiday being mostly shifted to New Year's Day. If

two countries so closely associated as England and Scotland can differ in this way individual action by Great Britain is clearly possible. There is a great deal to be said for a single country giving a lead in this matter, particularly as such long notice would have to be given.
In answer to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), it is a fact that the Orthodox Church already celebrates Easter on a different day from most of the rest of Europe, but it would not be a practicable proposition at the moment to approach the Orthodox Church on the matter. But at a time when the States of Western Europe are drawing closer and closer together in many respects, the, opportunity might well be taken to suggest to the 16 States of Western Europe now co-operating in so many fields that this sensible reform might be adopted in place of the anarchic situation which exists in regard to Easter at present.

Mr. Driberg: There would be an opportunity this coming summer, when the Lambeth Conference will be attended not only by 300 Anglican bishops from all over the world, but also by Orthodox prelates from Warsaw, Finland, Greece and other parts of the world.

Mr. Harris: In view of that, I gladly modify my remarks, and say that if advantage can be taken of that, I shall be glad. I do not claim this as a major reform, but I believe the Government would have the support of all sections in this House, and in the country, except, possibly, some sections—but I think not all—in the Roman Catholic Church, if they took the step which is in their power to take and placed the celebration of the great Christian festival of Easter on a rational basis, instead of the irrational basis on which it has rested up to this time.

4.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) has ranged over a very wide area in his survey of this problem. He has dealt with it from a commercial, economic and recreational point of view, and I am bound to say he has made out a very good case for consideration of


giving effect to the Act of 1928. However, I think that he has very considerably under-estimated the strength of the objections that would be raised to carrying out this proposal by the various churches. I also very much doubt whether, if it came to putting this into effect, it would be as easy to get international agreement as he seemed to suggest. I also think it would be quite impossible for this country to take this step alone.
After all, we were the last people in Western Europe to adopt the Gregorian Calendar, and our failure to adopt it led to very considerable inconvenience, but when the country finally decided to adopt it and Parliament decreed that it should come into force in this country, it was accompanied by riots and agitations among people who thought that somehow or other they had been swindled out of II days of their lives, or in some mysterious way without realising it, they had worked the II days for which they had not been paid.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Nothing very serious has happened as a consequence.

Mr. Ede: No, but they were ignorant people in those days. They were opposing something which had the full weight of most of the ecclesiastical opinion behind it. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot ignore the specific obligation that is placed on us by the Act of Parliament that regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body.
I was brought up as a Nonconformist, and it was always a great mystery to me how Easter was fixed, until a school fellow of mine, who attended the rites of the Established Church, explained to me that during a dull sermon he used to work out the dates of hypothetical Easters in the future from the tables in the last pages of the Book of Common Prayer.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In the first pages.

Mr. Ede: That shows that I still remain a good sound Nonconformist. The Roman Catholic Church has consistently opposed the fixing of Easter. I have no doubt that in this country there is strong feeling among lay opinion in favour of making the change, but the Church of

England has taken the line that it could accept it only if it is accepted by the other Christian communities. That, of course, places us in a very great difficulty. I am quite sure that these two Churches command a sufficient number of adherents in this country to make it very difficult for any Government, if it wanted to do so, to do anything that would offend them in a matter such as this.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the occasion on which the statement of the Anglican Church was made, and the authority on which it was issued?

Mr. Ede: I understand that it is a statement that has been made with the full authority of the Church of England, and, so far as I know, has never previously been disputed. It has been frequently stated by my predecessors in this House as being the view of the Church of England, and in accordance with the general line which they adopt on matters of this kind.
In 1938, the Vatican made it clear that it would be unwilling to move in the matter without first calling the General Council of the Church, and the British representative at the Vatican was given to understand that this was a step which His Holiness the Pope would be reluctant to take. I would not say that it would not be possible to force this particular Order in Council on the country, but I am quite certain that it would provoke very considerable controversy, and I doubt if we should get full support from some of the other churches which I have not named in my survey of the subject.

Mr. Wilson Harris: There is one rather important point. The right hon. Gentleman does not go so far as to say that he would regard the veto of a single church as fatal to Government action?

Mr. Ede: No. I must not be taken as saying that the Government could regard the veto of any church as being fatal to Government action, if there was a strong and insistent demand from the mass of the people of the country.
While there is a general feeling among the people who are not adherents of the Churches I have mentioned, or adherents who would follow their Churches in this


particular matter, I imagine there would be members of both Churches who would be inclined to think—

Mr. Driberg: Mr. Driberg rose—

Mr. Ede: I wish to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member and then I will give way. There is undoubtedly at the moment a very strong feeling among some of the adherents of some of the Churches. I concede to the hon. Gentleman that many millions of people in this country, if asked, would say they preferred that Easter should be fixed, for some of the reasons that he gave.

Mr. Driberg: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the last two years there has grown up a much closer liaison and relationship between the various Churches, such as the Church of England Council for Foreign Relations, and would it be worth sounding them at this stage?

Mr. Ede: I will undertake to keep my eyes open and ascertain if there is any move in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend with regard to such matters. But such information as I have at the moment is that there is no immediate prospect of agreement in this matter among the religious communities, and therefore we might be faced with very considerable difficulty if we attempted to make this Order -in Council.
I can see very great advantages in the fixing of Easter. I also do not share these ecclesiastical objections, but, holding the office which I do, I have to respect the tender consciences of other people. One does find sometimes that their consciences are hurt by the most unexpected things, especially when they are offended by some form of Government action in which the

secular Government appears to desire to override what they regard as the religious customs in which they have been brought up. It may be that at some time there will be so strong an expression of lay opinion in this country that the Government will feel that the time has come when this reform, which in principle has been approved by Parliament, should be brought about.
On the other hand, it may be that ecclesiastical opinion, Church opinion, may not be as strong in the future as it has undoubtedly been in the past. I do not think this matter has been very accurately canvassed during recent years. I recall the time when the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred became an Act of Parliament, and at that time there was undoubtedly a very strong feeling in the matter. With regard especially to the use that could be made of a fixed Easter, for travel on the continent and things of that kind, I suggest that it would be very desirable that any action that was taken should at least have the co-operation of other nations with whom we are most nearly associated.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: May I take this appropriate opportunity of wishing a very happy Easter to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), and the Home Secretary?

Mr. Ede: Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to speak twice?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It being Easter, we are lenient.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute to Five o'Clock till Tuesday, 6th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.